English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Pre-employment testing has become one of the fastest-growing tools used to select successful employees within organizations.  A variety of testing tools are at the disposal of Human Resource managers and hiring managers.  Testing of employees has developed since the time of Sigmund Freud, and testing entered the legal arena with the seminal case of Griggs v. Duke Power.  Ever since the Griggs case, “tests” need to be “relevant” and “valid” when given in the employment context, and left the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that its employment practices were not discriminatory, and that any disparate effects were clearly justified by the business.  Since the Griggs case, employers have developed tests that legally comply with the letter of the law, but may violate the spirit of the law by still permitting illegal discrimination.  This paper looks at recent case law and draws a conclusion.

Pre-Employment Testing Prediction Of Employee Success And Legal Issues: A Revisitation Of Griggs V. Duke Power