Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T08:52:42.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Consideration of International Differences in the Legal Context of Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eric M. Dunleavy ,
David B. Cohen ,
Michael G. Aamodt  and
Patricia Schaeffer
Eric M. Dunleavy*
Affiliation:
DCI Consulting Group
David B. Cohen
Affiliation:
DCI Consulting Group
Michael G. Aamodt
Affiliation:
Radford University and DCI Consulting Group
Patricia Schaeffer
Affiliation:
The Center for Corporate Equality
*
E-mail: edunleavy@dciconsult.com, Address: DCI Consulting Group, 1920 I Street NW, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 247 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), 422 U.S. 405.Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306.Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), 401 U.S. 424.Google Scholar
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306.Google Scholar
Gutman, A. (2000). EEO law and personnel practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gutman, A., & Christiansen, N. (1997). Further clarification of the judicial status of banding. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35, 75–81.Google Scholar
Jeanneret, R. (2005). Professional and technical authorities and guidelines. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic, A., et al. (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 206–246.Google Scholar
Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 2738.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
Stockdale, M. S. (2008). Patchwork protections: Progress and problems in battling sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Federal Register, 43(166), 38295–38309.Google Scholar
Zink, D. L., & Gutman, A. (2005). Statistical trends in private sector employment discrimination suits. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar