TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Technical Test From:Alan -dot- Miller -at- prometric -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:33:53 -0500
The issue here is not statutory requirements governing pre-employment
examinations (there may or may not be any). Rather, can Andrew (or any
other employer) defend his testing practices against a legal challenge.
These happen, often. Case on point: a large chap applied for a job at a
power plant as a mechanic. He was rejected because of his substantial bulk.
He filed suit, claiming he was arbitrarily rejected for being obese. He
lost, because one of the job duties of a mechanic at that power plant was
boiler steam drum inspections. This required the worker to fit through an
18-inch diameter man-hole. This job requirement was well documented, and
applied without exception.
The perception of a discriminatory practice is all that's needed to land an
employer in court. As I have said, I find no fault with Andrew's motives.
He's trying to find the best employees for his business. What seems like a
perfectly reasonable action on his part may be perceived as discriminatory
and land him in court, or in an EEOC hearing. Were I still in the business,
I would, at this point, make an egregious plug for services to analyze and
document the job and task requirements for Andrew's employees. But I don't
do that any more...at least until necessity dictates otherwise.
We all can be held responsible for our actions, sometimes legally because
someone couldn't stand to see his/her/its neighbor doing something,
sometimes just because someone questioned our motives.
Another precinct reporting in.
Chief Documentation Curmudgeon
"LeVie, Donald S" <donald -dot- s -dot- levie -at- intel -dot- com>@lists.raycomm.com on
03/01/2001 02:51:09 PM
Please respond to "LeVie, Donald S" <donald -dot- s -dot- levie -at- intel -dot- com>
Sent by: bounce-techwr-l-40429 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Subject: RE: Technical Test
Tracy said in part...
>>that #100 could rack up a lot of legal bills for you.<<
I respectfully disagree, Tracy, unless the test was the sole criterion for
the job. If Andrew's test is just one of many criteria for evaluating an
individual's "qualifications," I find it difficult to believe that he could
be held legally accountable because someone didn't meet Andrew's
requirements. There is no law that says you have to divulge the intent of
any test or how those results will be used in assessing someone's overall
ability to "do the job," which includes their reaction to the simulation of
a real-world situation.
Donn Le Vie
Network Communication Group
Wireless Communication and Computing Group
Develop HTML-Based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver 4 ($100 STC Discount)
**WEST COAST LOCATIONS** San Jose (Mar 1-2), San Francisco (Apr 16-17) http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.
IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
CALL FOR PAPERS OPEN UNTIL MARCH 15. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.