Opinion ID: 766623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Requirement of Test Validation

Text: 94 Discriminatory tests are impermissible unless shown, by professionally acceptable methods, to be predictive of orsignificantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 431 (1975). In evaluating tests under Title VII that allegedly have a disparate racial impact, we apply a burden-shifting approach. In the first step of the approach, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that the test causes a disparate impact on the basis of race. If the plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the test was properly validated to be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.  42 U.S.C. S 2000e-2k(1)(A)(i); see also Albemarle Paper, 422 U.S. at 425. 23 95 The District Court found that Plaintiffs met their burden of proving that the CBEST has a disparate impact on the plaintiff class. AMAE II, 937 F. Supp. 1397, 1403 (N.D. Cal. 1996), and this finding is not challenged on appeal. Proceeding to validation, the District Court found that Defendants had successfully rebutted the prima facie case. The District Court found that the CBEST had been properly validated in three studies: (1) the 1982 Wheeler & Elias study, (2) the 1985 Practitioner's Review, and (3) the 1995 Lundquist study. 24 Plaintiffs is their appeal challenge this finding by the District Court that the CBEST was properly validated. 96 Steps to Validate Employment Criteria: As we have previously explained, the validation of an employment criteria involves a three-step process: 97 The employer must first specify the particular trait or characteristic which the selection device is being used to identify or measure. The employer must then determine that that particular trait or characteristic is an important element of work behavior. Finally, the employer must demonstrate by professionally acceptable methods that the selection device is predictive of or significantly correlated with the element of work behavior identified in the second step. 98 Craig v. County of Los Angeles, 626 F.2d 659, 662 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Albemarle Paper, 422 U.S. at 431). Subsequently in Clady, we endorsed a slightly different test for determining whether a disparate impact defendant has satisfied the burden of showing job relatedness: 99 This circuit has held that the employer's burden is satisfied by showing by professionally acceptable methods that the test is predictive of or signifi cantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated. 100 Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1430 (9th Cir. 1985) (as amended) (quoting Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, 656 F.2d 1267, 1280 (9th Cir. 1981)). 101 Uniform Guidelines and Content Validation: Both the District Court and the parties measure the defendants' test validation procedures against the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee SelectionProcedures (Uniform Guidelines). 25 The Uniform Guidelines are not legally binding. They have not been promulgated as regulations and do not have the force of law. Clady, 770 F.2d at 1428 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, they are entitled to great deference. Albemarle Paper, 422 U.S. at 431 (quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 434 (1971)). We have previously held that while noncompliance [with the Uniform Guidelines] is not necessarily fatal, it diminishes the probative value of the defendants' validation study. Clady, 770 F.2d at 1430 (internal quotations omitted). 102 The Uniform Guidelines describe and approve three alternative methods of validating employment tests: 1) content validity studies; 2) criterion-related validity studies; and 3) construct validation studies. 26 The District Court evaluated the CBEST validation studies as content validity  studies, so we turn to the requirements of a content validity. 103 Content validation establishes whether the content of a test closely approximates the tasks to be performed on the job by the applicant. 27 Evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedure by a content validation study should consist of data showing that the content of the selection procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the job for which the candidates are to be evaluated. 29 C.F.R. S 1607.5(B).