Essay on Hrm 552 Case Study Analysis

695 Words Sep 8th, 2014 3 Pages
Case Study Analysis – Connecticut v. Teal (1982)
HRM/552—Organizational Training and Development

Case Summary The case of Connecticut vs. Teal is a part of landmark Supreme Court cases that were heard in the 1980s. Black employees that worked for the State of Connecticut were promoted to supervisors with a provision that for their promotion to become permanent, they would have to pass a written examination. There were 48 black candidates and 259 white candidates that took the written examination. A little over half of the black candidates that took the examination passed, however the black employees that did not pass were excluded from the remaining selection process to become permanent supervisors (Connecticut v. Teal, 1982). These
…show more content…
The definition of the bottom line concept states that, “When the overall selection process does not have an adverse impact, the government will usually not examine the individual components of that process for adverse impact or evidence of validity (Byars & Rue, 2008).” Simply put, just because the employer promoted a percentage of black employees, that did not mean that the employees that were not promoted had not been discriminated against.
What this means for the organization in the case study and for businesses in general

Within the employee selection process, an employer should make sure that each step of the process is fairly applied to all applicants. Employers cannot use a “bottom line” concept to determine whether or not to grant employment to a protected group because bottom line percentages are not determinative (Byars & Rue, 2008). When using examinations as a part of the job selection/promotion process, the examinations should be related to the job. To administer an examination that is not related to the job is not acceptable criteria for employers.
What legal precedence the ruling sets for most businesses

The Supreme Court ruling in the Connecticut case established that employment laws exist to protect the individual employee and that “fair treatment of a group is no defense to an individual claim of discrimination (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014).”
The role the

Related Documents