When testing job applicants, the key for companies is making sure the test matches the job. Otherwise, an unsuccessful applicant may sue, claiming the test was designed to exclude a protected class.

Here’s what happened in one recent case:

To reduce on-the-job injuries, one company started a new testing procedure for job applicants. The jobs involved some heavy lifting, so candidates were asked to carry 35-pound weights and load them onto a frame.

Applicants had to perform as many lifts as they could within seven minutes while the hiring manager observed. The candidates’ performance was a major factor in the company’s hiring decisions.

Several female applicants sued, claiming the test unfairly kept women from being hired. Before the testing was used, women made up 46% of all relevant positions — afterward, only 15% of those employees were women.

The company argued that the procedure was necessary in finding out who could do the job.

The court disagreed. On the job, employees did an average of 1.5 lifts per minute with a break after each lift — but during the test, applicants averaged six per minute without any breaks. The test was significantly more difficult than the actual job, so the company couldn’t prove it was necessary.

The case went before a jury, and the female applicants were awarded over $3 million.

Bottom line: Any test given to job applicants — whether it’s physical or written — should be in line with the actual demands of the position. That way, the company will be able to prove the test is a business necessity and fight charges that it has a negative impact on certain groups.

Cite: EEOC v. Dial Corp.

Tags: gender discrimination, pre-employment testing, safety