By really narrowing down the candidate list, Nike also reduced its turnover rate from 87 to 51%; with so many layers of cuts Nike ensured it got the exact type of candidate it wanted. Conclusions

Yet, despite the positive advancements the company made in its hiring process, there are potential Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) violations within its basic framework. First, not all applicants where given the same opportunity within the personal interview, with candidates deemed more desirable receiving more time. This then fails to provide an equal opportunity for those applicants who came in together. Secondly, undesirable behaviors were a major part of the computer interview. Behavior based interviewing can potentially be discriminatory to individuals with particular disabilities, including behavioral disorders. Additionally, there was a long application process, with applicants stating it was an arduous experience (Developing Effectiveness in Human Resources...

Thus, individuals with a disability could have had a harder time dealing with the application length. This shows that Nike may not have been providing "reasonable accommodation" for applicants with disabilities (the U.S. equal Opportunity Commission 2009). Moreover, the actual hiring process was skewed. Some applicants were hired on the spot, whereas others were forced to come in for a second interview. This forced potential applicants to have access to a phone, which is the company's last potential headway into a violation. This presents potential poverty discrimination, and enacting "undue hardship" (the U.S. equal Opportunity Commission 2009).
References

Developing Effectiveness in Human Resources. 284-285.

The U.S. equal Opportunity Commission. (2009). Federal Equal Employment (EEO) laws. Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions and Answers. Retrieved May 14, 2010 from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html.