29 CFR § 1607.4 - Information on impact. (2024)

§ 1607.4 Information on impact.

A. Records concerning impact. Each user should maintain and have available for inspection records or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests and other selection procedures have upon employment opportunities of persons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic group as set forth in paragraph B of this section, in order to determine compliance with these guidelines. Where there are large numbers of applicants and procedures are administered frequently, such information may be retained on a sample basis, provided that the sample is appropriate in terms of the applicant population and adequate in size.

B. Applicable race, sex, and ethnic groups for recordkeeping. The records called for by this section are to be maintained by sex, and the following races and ethnic groups: Blacks (Negroes), American Indians (including Alaskan Natives), Asians (including Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin or culture regardless of race), whites (Caucasians) other than Hispanic, and totals. The race, sex, and ethnic classifications called for by this section are consistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Standard Form 100, Employer Information Report EEO–1 series of reports. The user should adopt safeguards to insure that the records required by this paragraph are used for appropriate purposes such as determining adverse impact, or (where required) for developing and monitoring affirmative action programs, and that such records are not used improperly. See sections 4E and 17(4), below.

C. Evaluation of selection rates. The “bottom line.” If the information called for by sections 4A and B above shows that the total selection process for a job has an adverse impact, the individual components of the selection process should be evaluated for adverse impact. If this information shows that the total selection process does not have an adverse impact, the Federal enforcement agencies, in the exercise of their administrative and prosecutorial discretion, in usual circ*mstances, will not expect a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact, or to validate such individual components, and will not take enforcement action based upon adverse impact of any component of that process, including the separate parts of a multipart selection procedure or any separate procedure that is used as an alternative method of selection. However, in the following circ*mstances the Federal enforcement agencies will expect a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact and may, where appropriate, take enforcement action with respect to the individual components:

(1) Where the selection procedure is a significant factor in the continuation of patterns of assignments of incumbent employees caused by prior discriminatory employment practices, (2) where the weight of court decisions or administrative interpretations hold that a specific procedure (such as height or weight requirements or no-arrest records) is not job related in the same or similar circ*mstances. In unusual circ*mstances, other than those listed in (1) and (2) of this paragraph, the Federal enforcement agencies may request a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact and may, where appropriate, take enforcement action with respect to the individual component.

D. Adverse impact and the “four-fifths rule.” A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. Smaller differences in selection rate may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both statistical and practical terms or where a user's actions have discouraged applicants disproportionately on grounds of race, sex, or ethnic group. Greater differences in selection rate may not constitute adverse impact where the differences are based on small numbers and are not statistically significant, or where special recruiting or other programs cause the pool of minority or female candidates to be atypical of the normal pool of applicants from that group. Where the user's evidence concerning the impact of a selection procedure indicates adverse impact but is based upon numbers which are too small to be reliable, evidence concerning the impact of the procedure over a longer period of time and/or evidence concerning the impact which the selection procedure had when used in the same manner in similar circ*mstances elsewhere may be considered in determining adverse impact. Where the user has not maintained data on adverse impact as required by the documentation section of applicable guidelines, the Federal enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact of the selection process from the failure of the user to maintain such data, if the user has an underutilization of a group in the job category, as compared to the group's representation in the relevant labor market or, in the case of jobs filled from within, the applicable work force.

E. Consideration of user's equal employment opportunity posture. In carrying out their obligations, the Federal enforcement agencies will consider the general posture of the user with respect to equal employment opportunity for the job or group of jobs in question. Where a user has adopted an affirmative action program, the Federal enforcement agencies will consider the provisions of that program, including the goals and timetables which the user has adopted and the progress which the user has made in carrying out that program and in meeting the goals and timetables. While such affirmative action programs may in design and execution be race, color, sex, or ethnic conscious, selection procedures under such programs should be based upon the ability or relative ability to do the work.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046–0017)

[43 FR 38295, 38312, Aug. 25, 1978, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981]

I am a seasoned expert in the field of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, with a deep understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks governing fair employment practices in the United States. My expertise is grounded in extensive experience with the guidelines and standards set forth by relevant authorities, allowing me to provide comprehensive insights into the complex landscape of employment testing, selection procedures, and their impact on diverse groups.

Now, let's delve into the content of the provided article, which appears to be a section of regulatory guidelines pertaining to equal employment opportunity and recordkeeping:

Summary of § 1607.4 - Information on Impact

A. Records Concerning Impact

  1. Maintenance of Records: Employers are required to maintain and have available for inspection records or information revealing the impact of tests and selection procedures on employment opportunities by race, sex, or ethnic group.

  2. Sampling: In cases of a large number of applicants and frequent test administrations, information on impact may be retained on a sample basis, provided the sample is appropriate and adequate in size.

B. Applicable Groups for Recordkeeping

  1. Classification: Records should be maintained by sex and specific racial/ethnic groups, including Blacks, American Indians, Asians, Hispanics, whites, and totals. The classifications align with the Equal Employment Opportunity Standard Form 100.

  2. Safeguards: Employers should adopt safeguards to ensure records are used for appropriate purposes (e.g., determining adverse impact) and not misused.

C. Evaluation of Selection Rates

  1. Adverse Impact Evaluation: If the overall selection process shows adverse impact, individual components should be evaluated. Otherwise, enforcement agencies may not expect an evaluation.

  2. Enforcement Actions: Enforcement actions may be taken if the selection procedure is a significant factor in perpetuating discriminatory practices or if court decisions deem a specific procedure as not job-related.

D. Adverse Impact and the "Four-Fifths Rule"

  1. Four-Fifths Rule: A selection rate less than 80% of the highest group's rate is generally considered adverse impact.

  2. Significance: Smaller differences may still constitute adverse impact if significant statistically and practically. Greater differences may not be adverse impact if based on small numbers or affected by special recruiting programs.

E. Consideration of User's Equal Employment Opportunity Posture

  1. Affirmative Action Programs: Federal enforcement agencies consider the user's affirmative action program, including goals, timetables, and progress made.

  2. Selection Procedures: Affirmative action program design and execution may be race, color, sex, or ethnic conscious, but selection procedures should be based on the ability to perform the work.

This regulatory section, dated back to 1978 and subsequently amended, emphasizes the importance of maintaining records, evaluating impact, and considering equal employment opportunity postures to ensure fair and non-discriminatory employment practices.

29 CFR § 1607.4 - Information on impact. (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Last Updated:

Views: 5958

Rating: 5 / 5 (80 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Birthday: 1997-03-23

Address: 74183 Thomas Course, Port Micheal, OK 55446-1529

Phone: +13408645881558

Job: Global Representative

Hobby: Sailing, Vehicle restoration, Rowing, Ghost hunting, Scrapbooking, Rugby, Board sports

Introduction: My name is Geoffrey Lueilwitz, I am a zealous, encouraging, sparkling, enchanting, graceful, faithful, nice person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.