[dragonwriter]

> And IQ tests are legal to give during hiring, in just about any form, if that result correlates to useful for that job

No, “correlates to useful” is not the standard; there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available.

> You have to first show there is no correlation between GPA or IQ and job performance to claim it's not legal.

No, you don't: business necessity is an affirmative defense to disparate impact discrimination claims; once the unequal impact is proven, the challenged employer is required to prove the link to job performance. If they succeed, the challenging party has the burden of showing the existence of a less discriminatory alternative.

[ChrisLomont]

Cite a case. Griggs v. Duke Power is what most people claim makes IQ tests not legal, but that's not what the case was about. It was about discrimination against blacks, which is a legal protected class. Intelligence is not a legal protected class, so this ruling does not impact such tests for general intelligence.

>there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available

This was to prevent discrimination against blacks (if you're using the case above), not for intelligence. It's perfectly legal to discriminate based on intelligence, however you want to measure it.

>once the unequal impact is proven

Only against protected classes. Intelligence is not a protected class. Here's [1] the EEOC list of allowed testing. Top of the list is general cognitive tests.

So, what case are you basing your claims on? Are you conflating discrimination against a protected class with discrimination against intelligence?

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.h...

[dragonwriter]

> Cite a case

I would do better, and point you to the EEOC page covering the applicable regulatory and statute law, which also includes citation to some relevant cases, and entirely supports my description of the disparate impact standards, but since you cited the exact source I would cite, I'll instead just note that our disagreement isn't about authority, it is about application.

> Griggs v. Duke Power is what most people claim makes IQ tests not legal, but that's not what the case was about.

Correct, it is instead the case that laid out the standards I articulated for disparate impact.

> Intelligence is not a protected class.

IQ is differently distributed with regard to a number of protected classes (race is most often noted, but gender also, and if using the same test rather than an age-normed test, also age; probably ethnicity, religion, and national origin, too, but statistics on that are harder to find), so virtually any use of IQ tests (or any criteria that very closely correlates with IQ) is almost certainly going to meet the adverse impact prong of disparate impact analysis, requiring the employer to prove business necessity. (This was exactly the issue in Duke Power, which founnd IQ testing unlawful in the particular circumstances because of the absence of proof of business necessity.)

> Here's the EEOC list of allowed testing.

You need to read more carefully, that's not a list of allowed testing, no such thing exists. That page contains a list of examples of forms of testing, none of which are categorically allowed or prohibited. It also lays out the standards for evaluating disparate impact which I outlined

[ChrisLomont]

>and entirely supports my description of the disparate impact standards

When it impacts protected classes.

>unlawful in the particular circumstances because of the absence of proof of business necessity

Yep, and we're discussing jobs where IQ correlates to performance, so once again, do you claim in such jobs IQ testing is not legal? All case law I've read supports using IQ or other cognitive testing in such cases. Do you have a case otherwise? If not, then this entire thread is moot.

We're going around in circles.