Opinion ID: 771005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to validate for separate jobs

Text: 109 The use of a test that has a disparate impact under Title VIIis impermissible unless it is proven that the test is job related for the position in question. 42 U.S.C.S 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). The Uniform Guidelines provide that [a]ny validity study should be based upon a review of information about the job for which the selection procedure is to be used. 29 C.F.R. S 1607.14(A). The CBEST is invalid because it was not validated with specific reference to the various particular jobs for which the CBEST is used. 110 The Supreme Court clarified the job-specific validation requirement in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, holding that [a] test may be used in jobs other than those for which it has been professionally validated only if there are no significant differences between the studied and unstudied jobs.  422 U.S. 405, 432 (1980). In Albemarle, employment tests designed to measure general intelligence were administered to ten different job groups, which were primarily grouped together on the basis of their proximity to each other in the line of progression, rather than in terms of the specific skills that the jobs required. Id. at 429-30. The Court held the tests invalid in part because the validation study focused on higher-skilled positions on the production lines without adequately examining whether the tests were valid for workers entering lower level jobs. Id. at 433-34. Further, the Court noted that one of the tests required for the skilled lines of progression correlated to job performance in only three of the eight lines at issue. Id. at 431. Because the study had not shown that there were no significant differences between the various jobs this test purported to evaluate, the test was held invalid. Id. at 432. 111 We required a similar level of job specificity in Craig, which involved, in relevant part, a height requirement for prospective sheriffs. Craig, 626 F.2d at 666-68. Although the height requirement was justified by reference to the need for officers to command respect, we rejected the generalization that all police officers expend a significant portion of their time and effort in confrontation and control conditions because [n]o study proved the generalization to be a fact. Craig, 626 F.2d at 667. We therefore required the defendants to validate the requirement by reference to more than a general description of a police officer's functions, because different police officers have different duties. Other circuits have also rejected attempts to use a single test to measure skills for jobs that were generally similar but had appreciably different specific duties. 1 112 The CBEST was validated without regard to the important differences among the various jobs at issue, which range from twelfth grade mathematics teachers to seventh grade bilingual education teachers to guidance counselors, librarians, and administrators. The 1982 Wheeler and Elias study encompassed skills relevant to the job of teaching at any grade level; the 1985 Practioner's Review study divided the particular jobs into four groups, specifically (1) elementary school teachers, (2) secondary school teachers, (3) pupil personnel and librarians, and (4) administrators; and the Lundquist study divided the pool into teachers and administrators. Thus, even the study that provided the most specific analysis of job categories did not differentiate among the job duties of bilingual education teachers, mathematics teachers, and physical education teachers, for example. 113 The majority states that the CBEST establishes only a minimum level of competence in skills that are job related for all the positions in question. While it may be possible to construct a test that measures skills relevant for all teachers, Albemarle holds that such a test may only be used if it has been validated for each particular job involved or if there are no significant differences among the jobs at issue. Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 432. The positions at issue in AMAE bear less resemblance to each other than those in Craig, Albemarle, or the cases from other circuits. If a validation study must differentiate between different officers in the sheriff's department or workers on different lines at the paper production factory, it is certainly improper for the CBEST to be validated by reference to undifferentiated but significantly different teaching jobs. A validation study that focuses on the particular job of a teacher or even a secondary school teacher fails to satisfy the legal requirement that the examination predict job performance for each particular job position in question. Teachers' jobs are too diverse to be lumped into one or two categories for validation purposes. There is no legal or logical basis to support the majority's abandonment of the job-specific validation requirement employed in Abermarle and Craig. In doing so, it clearly erred. 114