Legal implications of job analysis in selection practices

¶ … organization normally lies on the competency of its employees with the responsibility upon them. However, the management is supposed to assign relevant task according to the skills and experience of an employee. Therefore job analysis is used in finding out the right job for the right person. However, "Job analysis" can be defined as the way of identify and determine in detail the particular job responsibility, requirements and relatives importance of these duties for a given an employee (Jones Sanchez, 2001).

Moreover, it is used to determine which criteria should be assessed in the selection process and the one which should be addressed for correspondence when one is being employed (Chad H. Van, 2010). Although, a lot of experience and skills are obtain when already working, but is necessary to have human resource experts to provide a ratings during job analysis, which however determine the best responsibilities and compensation for an employee (Chad H. Van, 2010).

In a clear context, job analysis is conducted to prepare job description, specification which in turn would help in hiring the right quality of workforce into the organization (Banch, 2008). It's also used purposely to analyze the physical requirements of a job to determine whether an individual who has suffered some diminished capacity is capable of performing the job with, or without, some accommodation (Jennifer French and Kristine Smith, 2009).

Most occasions the legal battle on job analysis do ignited by directly discrimination against anyone applying for employment or an employee. Such discriminations are normally base on age, disability, race, religion or belief, Sex or sexual orientation. This can only happen when in order to satisfy a genuine occupational requirement (GOR). Therefore, job must not indirectly or directly discriminate against anyone on any the basis, unless this discrimination can be objectively justified.

Besides, lack of re job relatedness and irrelevancy in questions ask during job analysis could sometime leads to legal battle. Because questions to be asked on an interview should related the specific job description the person intended, and such person releases that question were irrelevant he or she can take the matter to court (H. Henemen, 2008).

This normally ends up before the court of law when an employee takes human resource officers or managers to court because he or she feels discriminated. For example, in the case of "Griggs V. Duke Power," which outlined the need for conducting an analysis of the job with clear selection procedures has been developed. In the case, the Court emphasized that a selection device should measure the person for the job not the person in the conceptual. Another court battle is between Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, in case the Court noted that the State was not able to show the job relatedness of a selection test. The Court noted that there was no adequate job analysis which was carried out (Patricia A. Meglich, 2009).