EEOC Statements on Pre- Employment Inquiries “Although Title VII does not make pre-employment inquiries concerning race, color, religion or national origin per se violations of the law, the Commission’s responsibility to equal employment opportunity compels it to regard such inquiries with extreme disfavor.” “ … in the investigation of charges alleging the commission of unlawful employment practices, the Commission will pay particular attention to the use by the party against whom charges have been made of pre- employment inquiries concerning race, religion, color, or national origin, or other inquiries which tend directly or indirectly to disclose such information. The fact that such questions are asked may, unless otherwise explained, constitute evidence of discrimination, and will weigh significantly in the Commission’s decision as to whether or not Title VII has been violated”

Previous research studies examining employment applications by date of study Study ResultsType of Application & Sample Wallace & Vodanovich (2002) Fortune 500 sample = 2.99 inappropriate items Customer Service sample = 5.35 inappropriate items 191 Fortune 500 Finance/Accounting applications 109 Customer service applications (e.g., retail, food service) Wallace, Tye, & Vodanovich (2000) Average of 4.2 inappropriate items with most problematic: salary, age, driver’s license 42 online state general employment applications Vodanovich & Lowe (1992) Average of 7.4 inappropriate items with most problematic: age, convictions, & salary Retail; 46 categories Jolly & Frierson (1989) 25% of 20 categories were problematic (e.g., salary) 283 random applications from American Society of Public Administration members; 20 categories Coady, (1986) Most problematic: improper use of EEO worksheets 50 state libraries; 25 categories Lowell & DeLoach, (1982) Most problematic: military service & age 50 US firms; 17 categories Burrington, (1982) Average of 7.7 inappropriate items 50 general state applications; 30 categories Miller, (1980) Average of 9.74 inappropriate items 151 of Fortune 500; 72 categories Note: Adapted from Wallace, Tye, and Vodanovich, 2000.

Frequency of Common Inappropriate Application Blank Questions ItemNot appropriateWorded AppropriateNot asked Past salary Minimum salary Reference source Age Information about relatives Conviction records Health Military service Marital status Emergency contact Time in residence Physical desc., photo Rent or own Handicap Organizations Work schedule

Category InadvisableLegitimateInadvisableLegitimate Desired Salary Personal Address * Lowest Acceptable Salary Graduation Date Work Schedule Conviction (w/o disclaimer) References Gender (w/o EEO disclaimer) Race (w/o EEO Disclaimer) Driver’s License Relatives EEO Worksheet Handicap (w/o EEO disclaimer) Age (w/o EEO disclaimer) Language Fluency Emergency Contact Marital Status Personal Web Page Address National Origin (w/o EEO disclaimer) Customer Service Fortune 500 Percentage of most commonly identified inadvisable application blank items by sample [from Wallace & Vodanovich (2004) Public Personnel Management]

Application Blanks Content of items (use of job analysis) Number of application blanks (one for each position or job category) Legal issues Image of organization (e.g., format, recruitment issue, perceived fairness of questions ) Accuracy of data Education (e.g., 21%), salary (22%), job title (24%), years worked (29%) College students willing to include one lie on AB (95%); 45% had done so

Reference Checks (Exceptionally common technique; e.g., 95% usage by organizations) Basic Purposes: Verify information provided by the applicant (check for inconsistencies) Uncover unreported or additional information (over ½) Predict job performance (pass or fail decisions made (52%)

Types of Information Collected Employment dates Rehire? Salary history Absenteeism, tardiness Qualifications for a certain type of job or work

Reference Check Methods In-Person (e.g., interview) Costly, time consuming Used in jobs that involve the concern for risks (e.g., security, $) Can elicit different types of information (differences between in-person and written reference information) Mail (or ) Low return rate (e.g., 56 – 64%) Standardized questions, format Written record of responses Ensure confidentiality of responses (signed statement by applicant)

Telephone Checks (More frequently used than written references) Allows follow-up or clarification of answers given Less resistance to giving certain types of information can be collected Quick process Important data can be gleaned from various verbal cues (e.g., pauses, hesitations, voice inflections, voice level, intonations) Relatively high return rate Better responsiveness, more interactive nature of the method More confidence in the identity of responder

Sources of Reference Data Supervisor (most common and most useful) Personal reference Agencies (e.g., credit ratings) Public Records (criminal background, driving records, court records, workers compensation) Educational background (verification)

Reference Check Recommendations Use of job-related questions (e.g., KSAs from a job analysis) Use of multiple reference check forms (job specificity) Follow provisions contained in the Uniform Guidelines (e.g., regarding fairness, validity) Behaviorally-focused and objective set of questions Get written permission for applicants Training of interviewers (phone, interview) and Recordkeeping Ask for additional references if one’s submitted not available Verify information that is collected!

Letters of Recommendation (Mainly used in highly skilled or professional jobs) Some Indicators: Meaning of certain adjectives (e.g., mental ability – performance; cooperativenss/personality – not related to performance) Number of words used or length of letter (longer letter is better) Concerns: Pre-selection of referees (often only positive information included) Verbal and organizational skill of writer Unstructured content Omissions Time availability Subjective scoring (e.g., focus on irrelevant information, status of writer)

Usefulness of Reference Information Relatively low validity; relationship to performance measures (e.g.,.14,.16) Relatively low interrater reliability (e.g.,.40, but sometimes from different sources) Most useful if: Data collected from immediate supervisor Referee knows applicant well (chance to observe job behavior) and have similar demographic characteristics Similarity between the prior job and the one being applied for