5 ms·
"illegal unless it has passed through a battery of compliance paperwork" "This is literally a Title VII violation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co. held that "The [C
by rahimnathwani 2mo ago
"illegal unless it has passed through a battery of compliance paperwork"
"This is literally a Title VII violation."
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. held that "The [Civil Rights] Act [of 1964] does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance."
Why do you believe that prior documentation is required, and that the absence of such documentation would make the testing illegal?
- inigyou 2mo ago> Why do you believe that ... Check his blog and find out. I particularly enjoyed the part where the best way to improve public transport is to keep poor people out, not to increase frequency.
- rahimnathwani 2mo agoIs there a specific page on his blog that answers my question? His suggestions for improving public transport are not relevant to this discussion.
- inigyou 2mo agoYou might alternatively prefer the ones about how health insurance never denies care, Luigi Mangione was a bad guy, or Democrats have made it profitable to be a victim.
- rahimnathwani 2mo agoFrom your descriptions they don't seem relevant to this discussion.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt identifies a certain type of person.
- arjie 2mo agoWow, I am entirely wrong here, huh? I thought that "demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance" was held to the standard that it had to be proven fair (and consequently documented to have proven job impact). EDIT: Hang on, I decided to just test the idea with the usual suspects and I don't see how you could design this in a way that works. You'd need some kind of non-contaminated testable outcome - lines of code etc. don't work - that is considered job performance which is scientifically validated in order to be able to survive the litigation that would follow the test. I suppose the part that was wrong was that I claimed you can't run an IQ test. That's not true. You can. It just legally exposes you to a paperwork burden involving proof that it is required for job functionality - proof which you'll almost certainly fail because software engineer productivity isn't mechanically solved yet. Is that the distinction? Listen, I've read your stuff and generally trust you and in any case I'm open to having my mind changed on this subject, but it seems like the actual thing is "Possible, but if you do it, you're going to find yourself in a massive paperwork and legal headache".
- rahimnathwani 2mo agoYour last statement is closer to the real situation, but you make it sound like it's certain that you will be called upon to defend the legality of your actions. But I'm not aware of any evidence showing that is true. And, even if it were true in the past, it seems that the DOJ believes that was based on a misinterpretation of the law. So it is less likely be true since June 2026: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1444871/dl https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1444871/dl