Lawrence S. Kleiman

DRUG TESTING IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE-SECTOR WORKPLACES: TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

This paper examines the technical and legal issues surrounding the implementation of drug testing programs in the public and private-sector workplaces. In Part I of the paper, technical issues important to an understanding of urinalysis drug testing methods are examined. In Part II, recent federal case law is reviewed in order to identify the different legal parameters associated with drug testing in the public and private sectors. Part III presents guidelines for employers who already have or are about to implement a drug testing program within their organizations.

Performance Evaluation: A Case for the Use of Consensus Ratings

Data from a sample of government research scientists were used to compare the psychometric properties of pooled and consensus ratings of job performance. It was hypothesized that consensus ratings would possess less halo and leniency error and greater validity than would pooled ratings. The findings supported the halo hypothesis and partially supported the validity hypothesis. Given the severity of the “criterion problem” in validation research, further research was recommended to extend the generalizability of these findings to other performance appraisal settings.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE LAW: COURT STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS

This article reviews case law dealing with sexual harassment claims of hostile environment filed under the Civil Rights Act. The article is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases. The information reported in this article was gleaned by reviewing all 28 hostile environment cases decided at the circuit court level during the period of May 2002 to April 2003. The first section of the article identifies the types of evidence plaintiffs need to substantiate their claims of hostile environment sexual harassment. The article concludes with a discussion of the managerial implications suggested by the case law. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA) prohibits sex discrimination at the workplace. The Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson [1] made it quite clear that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and is therefore unlawful [1]. Since this ruling, the number of reported cases of sexual harassment has steadily grown. In 1992, 10,532 charges of sexual harassment were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By 2002, this number had risen to 14,396. The number of actual incidents of sexual harassment could be as high as 150,000 per year, given the fact that only about 10% of sexual harassment victims ever file a formal complaint [2, 3].

Legal Issues concerning Polygraph Testing in the Public Sector

The purpose of this paper was to review the legal issues related to the use of the polygraph in the public employment setting. Nineteen written judicial decisions were reviewed to determine the legal parameters surrounding the administration of the polygraph and the use and dissemination of polygraph results. The paper concludes with a discussion of the organizational implications pertaining to polygraph testing and its alternatives.

JOB ANALYSIS FOR MANAGERIAL SELECTION: A GUIDELINES-BASED APPROACH

This research note describes a job analysis study which was conducted for the purpose of deriving selection standards for entry-level management jobs in a public utility. It is aimed toward practitioners with the responsibility of conducting legally-defensible job analyses. Each step of the study was guided by the legal and professional guidelines on testing and selection (viz.,Uniform Guidelines, 1978;Principles, 1986;Standards, 1985). Procedures employed to identify job content, job groups, the importance of various work behaviors, and a set of important knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics (KSAPs) are described.

JUSTIFYING PREGNANCY-RELATED EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS UNDER THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT

This article provides an overview of recent court cases involving adverse employment actions that were influenced by an employee’s pregnant condition. It is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases so that they will be better able to make employment decisions that comply with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The information reported in this article was gleaned by reviewing all cases decided at the circuit court level and published from January 1999 to June 2004. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits pregnancy discrimination at the workplace. Enacted in 1978, the law states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work” [1, p. 1]. Because this law defines pregnancy discrimination in very general terms, it does not provide employers with a clear guide for implementing specific policies and practices. Such guidance is better provided by the case law. That is, an employer should refer to past court decisions when trying to determine the legality of an adverse employment action taken against a woman who is protected by the PDA.

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION AND THE COURTS: A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

This article reviews case law dealing with claims of religious accommodation discrimination filed under the Civil Rights Act. This article is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases. The article is divided into three sections. The first two sections examine the type of evidence needed by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination and the requirements for an effective defense. The third section addresses areas of potential concerns for organizations in light of the judicial decisions reviewed and offers recommendations for avoiding/defending claims of religious accommodation discrimination. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA) prohibits religious discrimination at the workplace. One of the most challenging aspects of the law for employers is dealing with employees’ requests for religious accommodation. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 1978 decision in TWA vs. Hardison [1], the CRA requires employers to provide religious accommodations, as long as the accommodation does not place an undue hardship on their business operations. The Court defined an undue hardship as one in which the cost of accommodation is more than minimal [1]. The determination of more than minimal depends on such factors as the size and nature of the business and the amount of expense involved. As the result of such factors as immigration, globalization, and a changing political and religious climate, today’s employers face a wide variety of

Wrongful Termination, ADA, and the Courts

This article reviewed case law dealing with wrongful termination claims filed under Title 1 of the ADA to help employers better understand how the courts adjudicate these types of cases. The article is organized around the three defenses available to employers when faced with an ADA charge: 1 ) the employee does not belong to the protected class (i.e., is not legally disabled) and thus is not protected by the ADA; 2) the employee is not otherwise qualified; that is. the termination was justified because the employee could no longer perform the essential functions of the job, even with a reasonable accommodation; and 3) the employee was terminated for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, one that was unrelated to hisher disability. The discussion section addresses areas of potential concern for organizations in light of the judicial decisions reviewed and offers some recommendations for avoiding/defending wrongful termination suits under the ADA. Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) [ I ] is arguably the most sweeping piece of employment legislation enacted since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation is designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same employment opportunities as their nondisabled counterparts. This law, which covers nearly all employers with fifteen or more employees, makes i t illegal to discriminate against individuals with a disability who are otherwise qualified to perform the job in question. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a set of regulations accompanied by an interpretive appendix [2]. a technical assistance