PowerPoint Presentation - Alyce Dickinson PhD.ppt by shenreng9qgrg132


Today and Wednesday: Lecture
Monday, 4/11: Exam

       For many years, tests have been classified as either
        achievement tests or aptitude tests
       Definitions of “achievement” and “aptitude”
             Achievement
              The act of accomplishing or finishing something successfully,
              especially by means of exertion, skill, practice, or perseverance
             Aptitude
              A natural or acquired talent or ability or inclination; Quickness in
              learning and understanding - intelligence
          Mind-body dualism typical of traditional testing

(skipping SOs 1&2, straightforward; in this material, GF&B argue that the terms “achievement test” and “aptitude test”
are inappropriate and should be replaced with the term “ability test” - and I agree with them; excellent material)

     Achievement tests (supposedly) measure
       What a person learned as a result of a specific structured
        educational/training experience/course
       Scores are interpreted to be a measure of how much an individual
        knows as a result of the education or training
       English grammar, math, science, social studies, etc.
       These are the types of tests used in grade school and high school to
        measure student learning/proficiency
           ▪ In Michigan, MEAP tests: Michigan Educational Assessment Program

(based on the definitions and distinction between achievement and aptitude, then..)
   Aptitude tests (supposedly) measure
     Accumulation of learning from a number of diverse and usually
      informal learning experiences
     Although not emphasized by GFB, genetic implication as well
      ▪   You have artistic ability or you don’t
      ▪   You have mechanical aptitude or you don’t
      ▪   Women don’t have an aptitude for math
      ▪   Men don’t have good spatial aptitude
     Said to measure potential to learn, or the potential to develop new
      skills and acquire new knowledge
     Intelligence tests, SATs, GREs, Mechanical Aptitude, Artistic Aptitude
     These are the tests that you are told you can’t study for (hog wash -
      most people don’t say that any more)

   All tests measure what a person has learned up to the
    time he or she takes the test and that is the only thing a
    test can measure
   They cannot and do not measure innate or unlearned
   Thus, the distinction between achievement tests and
    aptitude tests is arbitrary and
   We should use the term “ability tests” for both types of
     Ability in the sense of competence or proficiency, regardless of
      how you have acquired the ability/skill

          Notice that GFB are not denying that “innate” potential exists -
          but that really is their position (or I should say, they believe
          most, if not all of what is measured on tests is learned; which
          is exactly the position we should take).

          Look at their use of quotes: “large degree”. Also, “innate” is in
          quotes but unlearned is not - that is a subtle, but important
          distinction they are making with their use of quotation marks.
          They have crafted this argument based on
          objections/conversations with traditional testing folk.

(aptitude measuring genetic/innate potential; pretty much direct quotes from G&F, including quotation marks)
      Tests can and do measure the prerequisites that are
       necessary for further learning in an specified area, and
       thus can predict future learning/performance
        If students do not do well in PSY 3600, Concepts and Principles of
         Behavior Analysis, they cannot do well in PSY 4600, Survey of
         Behavior Analysis Research, thus a student’s grade in PSY 3600
         can predict his or her performance in PSY 4600
        You can’t balance an equation in chemistry unless you know
         algebra, thus a test of algebra can predict performance in a
         chemistry class

(not in text, but important to understand)
    Mental ability tests were at the center of early critical
     Supreme Court decisions regarding unfair discrimination
    Thus, many companies stopped using them
    However, there is a lot of research in selection that
     indicates that mental ability tests are related to almost all
    Validity correlations are often quite high, and higher than
     correlations of other tests
    Many companies are now using them again
    Remember, however, if you use one of these, you must
     conduct an empirical validity study (or use validity
(as a behavior analyst, I still have trouble with the term “mental” ability since it still implies mind-body dualism; I’m
more comfortable, but not completely with “cognitive” ability; but haven’t been able to come up with anything
different that and certainly like those terms better than “intelligence” tests)
       A rose is not a rose is not a rose
         A mental ability test is not a mental ability test is not a mental ability
       Mental ability tests measure a collection of abilities - a
        learned repertoire
         Verbal, math, memory, and reasoning abilities
       14 different abilities are often measured in some
        combination by mental ability tests (next slide)
       Different mental ability tests often measure a different set
        of these abilities
       Thus a person may score differently on different tests of
        mental ability

(FE: main abilities include some form of verbal, math, memory, and reasoning abilities)

       Memory span                                                  Figure classification
       Numerical fluency                                            Spatial orientation
       Verbal comprehension                                         Visualization
       Conceptual classification                                    Intuitive Reasoning
       Semantic relations                                           Ordering
       General reasoning                                            Figure identification
       Conceptual foresight                                         Logical evaluation and

(that is why if you use the PAQ you must take great care in selecting tests that are similar to the GATB tests
that are recommended)
       The term mental ability makes it explicit that these tests
        measure various cognitive abilities of the applicant (and
        not some innate, unlearned, hypothetical construct called
       These cognitive abilities are most directly identified by the
        what is measured (some combination of the 14 abilities
        listed earlier) and from the content of the items
       They should be thought of the same way the other
        abilities discussed in the book are thought of
         e.g., mechanical ability, clerical ability
       In other words, they are disputing the traditional view that
        there is something called “intelligence”

(the answer is similar to SO7)
 I am going to show you some examples of mental
  ability tests at the end of class, just to “de-mystify”
  them a bit
 The authors describe the Wonderlic Personnel Test
  which is probably the most popular
     Given to all players at the NFL Scouting Combine and
      scores are reported to NFL teams before the annual draft
   For a moment, look at items in the text that are
    similar to the ones on the Wonderlic Personnel Test

 1. Which of the following months has 30 days?
        (a) February (b) June (c) August (d) December

 2. Alone is the opposite of:
        (a) happy (b) together (c) single (d) joyful

 3. Which is the next number in this series:
    1, 4, 16, 4, 16, 64, 16, 64, 256,
        (a) 4 (b) 16 (c) 64 (d) 1024

(Two slides - Note: all six items are different types of items: general knowledge, opposites (verbal
comprehension and vocabulary), numerical reasoning and ordering)

4. Twilight is to dawn as autumn is to:
          (a) winter (b) spring (c) hot (d) cold

5. If Bob can outrun Junior by 2 feet in every 5 yards of a race, how
    much ahead will Bob be at 45 yards?
          (a) 5 yards (b) 6 yards (c) 10 feet (d) 90 feet

6. The two words relevant and immaterial mean:
  (a) the same (b) the opposite (c) neither same nor opposite

(again, notice the type of questions: semantic or verbal reasoning, numerical fluency/reasoning,
verbal comprehension - opposites)
   What have the validity studies uniformly

       Mental ability tests are among the most
       valid of all selection instruments

    (next slide on validity of mental ability tests as well)
 Differences in the actual tasks that a person
  performs as part of a job have very little effect on
  the magnitude of the validity coefficients for
  mental ability tests
 In other words, mental ability tests are valid
  predictors of performance for a wide variety of jobs

 They have repeatedly been shown to have adverse
  impact on protected classes, particularly blacks and
 This led to the notion that these types of test might
  have differential validity - next

          11A: What is meant by differential validity?
             Notion/hypothesis that tests are less valid for
                minority groups than for nonminorities
                ▪ That is, a test may be significantly more valid for whites
                  than for blacks
                ▪ Term is related to test bias regarding ability tests,
                  particularly mental ability tests
                ▪ This claim is made over and over again with respect to
                  SATs and GREs - that those tests are more predictive of
                  the performance of white students than they are of the
                  performance of minority students

(extremely important; and mentioned often in selection as well as admissions to colleges and universities,- and is
still very controversial)
   The argument is that the content of ability tests is based
    on content/items related to the white middle-class (e.g.,
    vocabulary and grammar), and thus the scores of the
    minorities are lower than what they should be

   The data are very clear about this issue
         Differential validity does not exist
• That is, tests are equally valid for whites and other
  ethnic/racial groups
• It makes sense
     – Verbal comprehension skills are verbal comprehension skills
     – Verbal reasoning skills are verbal reasoning skills
     – Math skills are math skills, etc.
• Thus if any of these skills are required by the job, they
  should be “equally required” by whites and members of
  other ethnic/racial groups

 Meta-analyses have been consistent – there are
  significant differences in mean test scores among
  racial/ethnic groups
 Ranking:

         Cognitive ability tests have a high correlation
          with job performance and academic performance
         They have a disproportionate impact on
          Hispanics and blacks
         Often result in adverse impact as legally defined
          when used for selection

(important, difficult issue arises)
   13A: Adverse impact, however, does not mean that unfair
    discrimination has occurred; if the tests are job related
    then fair discrimination has occurred
   13B: Two things that make a defense against adverse
    impact likely:
     They are usually valid – and are among the most valid
       and least expensive tests
     Differential validity does not exist
   The result of that is that a large percentage of the jobs are
    likely to be filled with whites and much smaller
    percentage by Hispanics and blacks

      It is not appropriate to conclude from these studies
       that differences are due to
        genetic differences
        educational differences
        cultural differences
      Studies do not address the reasons

(the authors want to caution any one making any general conclusions as to why differences exist; particular concern about
race-based genetic arguments as advanced in the Bell Curve, one of the most recent books/articles on this issue)

    Cognitive ability tests measure verbal fluency, math,
     spatial relations, reasoning skills, and memory
    These are skills taught in schools
    These skills also, particularly verbal fluency and math, have
     a high correlation with socio-economic status
    I firmly believe that if we are able to improve the quality of
     education that all of our country’s children receive, then we
     would eliminate most, if not all, of the differences we are
     seeing in the cognitive abilities of various demographic
    As a society, that needs to be one of our top, if not our top,

(clearly, NFE)
    Cognitive ability tests are among the most valid
     tests for a large number of jobs (and some selection
     specialists would say for all jobs)
    Evidence also indicates they result in mean score
     differences for demographic groups and thus
     adverse impact is highly likely

(I am skipping to SO17 for the moment, I’ll return to 15)

           Because they are so valid, some selection specialists believe
            cognitive ability tests should be used extensively in selection
           Some, however, have expressed deep reservation about
            using them because of the social implications of the
            disqualification of larger proportions of minorities

(very nice discussion of this in text; directly quoting GFB here; cont. on next slide)
       To some extent, the decision may reflect the
        values/goals of the organization
         If goal is to maximize individual performance with minimal cost,
          cognitive ability tests will do this
         If the organization has multiple goals of sustaining high performance
          while maintaining a broad representation of minorities, then it would
          be better to limit the use of cognitive ability tests and use other,
          generally more expensive and almost equally valid instruments
             ▪   biodata inventories (I don’t like these as you will see next unit)
             ▪   structured interviews
             ▪   work sample tests
             ▪   assessment centers

(that’s the rub - the expense of those other instruments)

         If an organization has diversity as a selection goal and
          wants to use cognitive ability tests because of their validity
          and the fact that other options are much more expensive,
          what is the main/best option?
          Vigorous recruitment of minority applicants

(now back to SO15: remember race norming is not legal; often a problem because selection specialists are typically not
the ones who are responsible for recruitment –selection specialists really
need to work with the HR staff)

 The authors describe several very popular tests
 Refer to this material if you are ever looking for
  tests in these categories
 I am not going to have you learn anything specific
  about these tests

 Physical ability tests do have high validity (not
  surprising if the job is physically demanding), but
  of course you have to be particularly concerned
  legally about:
   Females, disabled, and older workers
 Tests must be clearly linked to job tasks that
  require those abilities

         Height and weight requirements have often been
          challenged in court
            Adverse impact on females and Asians
       The courts have rarely let them stand
       The rationale for using these measures is that they
        are substitute measures for strength
       But courts have consistently held that if strength is
        the job requirement, then it should be measured
        directly (physical ability test)

(a lot of organizations in the past; police and fire)
   The data and information on personality tests is difficult
   For many years, companies used personality tests that were
    developed by clinical psychologists, and some of those tests
    are still popular and being used by organizations
     One is the California Personality Inventory
     Have not had good validity historically
     In prior editions of the book, GFB advised against their use
   But, there is some good work going on right now, however,
    the field is in a bit of flux right now
     Intuitively we know that “personality” influences how effective a
      person is at work, we just haven’t tapped into what the relevant KSAs
      really are, or what the relevant clusters of behaviors are

        There has been some work on what has been called the “Big Five”
         personality dimensions or traits that are being assessed in work
         environments rather than taken from earlier clinical tests
           Extroversion
            ▪ Being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active
           Agreeableness
            ▪ Being courteous, flexible, trusting, good natured, cooperative, forgiving,
              softhearted, and tolerant
           Conscientiousness
            ▪ Being responsible, organized, dependable, planful, willing to achieve, and
           Emotional stability (only one described in negative terms)
            ▪ Being emotional, tense, insecure, nervous, excitable, apprehensive, and easily upset
           Openness to experience (also called intellect or culture)
            ▪ Being imaginative, cultured, curious, intelligent, artistically sensitive, original and
              broad minded

(we will see where it goes - we are empiricists)
         I am not going to discuss the ways that personality has been
          measured for selection, but I want to deal with the Meyers
          Briggs (self report inventory)
               ▪ It is very popular in business and industry for leadership
                 training, work group development and career counseling (it is
                 based on psychological types developed by Carl Jung)
               ▪ It is completely useless for selection
                   ▪ Very low validity in studies
                   ▪ Test-retest reliability coefficients range from .69 to .77 which
                     partially accounts for the low validities (remember .85 is
                     considered to be the minimum acceptable)

(Leslie Braksick mentioned this when she was here; friend in the business college who swore by it, DBA from Harvard;
Very popular in the Public Administration Dept. as well Brethower story, 9 years, Center for HR development)
      “Personality should be a worker characteristic related to
       performance in many jobs.”
      However, validity data have not been high
      That may be because the methods of personality
       assessment in selection often are inadequate
      Use with caution!!!

(needless to say, this is not a strong endorsement of using personality tests)
          If you do use a personality test, you must use a criterion-
           related validity study to support it because personality
           traits cannot be directly observed
            Concurrent validity
            Predictive validity
            Validity generalization

(in other words you cannot use content validity: also have some legal issues to be aware of)

   ADA (dealt with this previously in U3)
     If a test can and is used to diagnose mental/psychiatric disorders,
      then it will probably be considered a medical examination under
     If it deals with other personality traits (the Big 5, for example) then
      it probably will not be considered a medical examination
     Nonetheless, my strong advice to you is to treat every personality
      test as a medical examination until things are clarified more by the
     Which means you should only administer personality tests post-
      offer and keep the results in a file that is separate from the
      personnel file

   Clarifying court case, 2005, 7th Circuit Court
     MMPI is a medical examination and thus illegal for pre-
      employment use (certainly that was expected)
     Psychological tests that measure personal traits such as
      honesty, integrity, preferences and habits do not
      constitute medical examinations

   Right to privacy (be able to explain this as well)
     Although a right to privacy is not explicitly guaranteed under the US
      Constitution, individuals are protected from unreasonable
      intrusions and surveillance
     Personality tests, by their nature, reveal an individual’s thoughts
      and feelings
     Several states have laws that explicitly guarantee a right to privacy
       ▪ To date, litigation has occurred about questions relating to sexual
         inclinations and orientation, and religious views

(second thorny issue)

   Soroka v. Dayton Hudson (1991)
     California Court of Appeals stopped Dayton Hudson’s Target stores
      from requiring applicants for store security positions to take a
      personality test that contained questions about sexual practices and
      religious beliefs
     The court also stated that employers must restrict psychological
      testing to job-related questions
     The ruling was later dismissed because the parties reached a court-
      approved settlement
      ▪ Dayton-Hudson agreed to stop using the personality test
      ▪ Divided $1.3 million dollars among the estimated 2,500 members of the
        plaintiff class who had taken the test

      Performance or work sample tests are excellent and I
       highly recommend their use when you can do them
        Typing test
        Having candidates write a computer program to solve a specific
        Role playing a sales situation with an applicant for a sales position
        Having mechanics trouble shoot a problem with an engine
      You are getting an actual sample of behavior under
       controlled testing conditions (which permits you to easily
       compare performance across applicants)

(this slide NFE)

        From a technical perspective, they have
          Very high validity, and often much higher than pencil and paper tests
           designed to measure the same KSAs
          Show less adverse impact that pencil and paper tests
        They have some disadvantages, which I will get to in a
         moment, but
        They reduce two limitations of other selection procedures,
         and both are related to verbal behavior
        Most selection procedures rely heavily on verbal behavior
          Written answers to questions (ability tests)
          Oral descriptions of abilities/skills (interviews, training and
             evaluation assessments)

(This slide NFE)

   Willful distortion and faking (people want to look good)
     This varies dependent upon the selection procedure
       ▪ Reports about past experiences (interviews, T&Es) where the
         information is difficult to confirm - most susceptible
       ▪ Personality and honesty inventories, next susceptible
       ▪ Ability tests, least susceptible

   Relationship between verbal behavior and actual behavior
    is not perfect (as we behavior analysts well know)
     Much of our behavior is contingency-shaped, not rule-governed
     This is particularly a problem for exemplar performers who are not
      verbally fluent
       ▪ Automobile mechanic
       ▪ Plumbers
       ▪ Machine operator
     It can also be a problem for employees who are exemplar
      performers but can’t describe what makes them exemplary
      performers – sales representatives

   Many consulting firms use stress interviews as part of their
    selection process
   Stress interviews
    Interviewer creates a stressful situation, often by asking many
    questions rapidly, not allowing much time for the applicant to
    respond, interrupting the applicant frequently, acting in a
    semi-hostile manner, or in a cool aloof manner

      SO26: Why aren’t stress interviews representative of actual job
        Even if the job is one of high work demands that produce stress, rarely is the
         situation staged in the interview representative of the actual work demands
         that produce the stress
        In very few jobs, is the stress related to a semi-hostile or cool/aloof stranger
         rapidly firing questions
        The behavior of the applicant doesn’t readily generalize to the job and thus
         should not be used as a predictor

(press secretary, perhaps; next slide also)

 This situation illustrates one of the main limitations of performance
  Difficulty of accurately simulating complex, multiple-demand, types
  of tasks
 Also sometimes difficult to construct a representative test that does
  not involve skills/knowledge learned on the job
     General sales skills OK, but questions that deal with specific company-related
      products and pricing may not be

   Cost
     They tend to be very expensive to develop
     Equipment and materials
      ▪ Do-nothing machine that tests the mechanical aptitude of
      ▪ Program it for many common problems that mechanics encounter
        on assembly lines
     Often one-on-one or small group administration is
     Development of test and scoring

   Validity
     They tend to have very good validity
      ▪ Often equal to or greater than mental ability tests
   Adverse impact
     Many studies have found they have less adverse impact
      than mental ability and pencil and paper tests

   Assessment centers or even the use of some of the exercises
    often included in assessment centers have been highly
     In-basket tests
     Leaderless group interaction tests
     Case analyses
   Main problem is their time and expense to both develop and

        Refer you to the Minnich & Komaki article in U7 in the course
         pack from the OBM Network News
         The article describes the use of a validated in-basket test to assess the
         effectiveness of managers based on Komaki’s Operant Supervisory
         Taxonomy and Index
         This is one of the best examples I have ever seen of the intersection of
         behavior analysis and traditional I/O Psychology
        Operant supervisory taxonomy and index
          Assessed the difference between high performing and low performing
          Found that work sampling and type of consequence following
           performance distinguished between high and low performing
(Gives a detailed description of the instrument, some of the actual items, and responses, along with analysis of responses
I haven’t asked her whether it is commercially available)

          During the introduction to the course, I provided some information
           about graphology
            Kalamazoo Gazette Headline
             Dow uses handwriting to determine aptitude
            Used as a selection tool in/by (very popular in Europe):
             ▪ 2,500 US companies
             ▪ 68% of Swiss companies
             ▪ 50% of French companies
             ▪ 80% of French selection consultants
             ▪ 80% of Western European countries
          I am appalled, as are the authors, that a section on graphology has to
           be included in a legitimate text on personnel selection and placement

(couldn’t resist including this; this slide NFE)

   Graphology has no validity whatsoever as a
    selection tool or
    as GFB state, “it flat out doesn’t work.”
     Neter & Ben-Shakhar conducted a meta-analysis of 17
      graphology studies: one of my personal favorites
      ▪ Trained graphologists were no better than nongraphologists in
        predicting performance based on hand writing samples
      ▪ Psychologists with no knowledge of graphology outperformed
        graphologists on all dimensions!

            (NFE) Just for fun, look at Table 15.4
            Gatewood sent a handwriting sample to a graphologist
             who graduated from the program conducted by the
             International Graphoanalysis Society
              Four times (for each edition of the book), they
                calculated reliability (same graphologist) and reported
                the results with commentary by GBF
              Read pages 662-664

(love the way the authors handle this - humor and irony)
    For all practical purposes, it is illegal
       Federal law, Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
       It can be used in some specific employment situations for selection (there
          are other requirements for use with current employees)
          ▪ Private employers whose primary business purpose is to provide security services
            (e.g., protection of nuclear power facilities, public water supply facilities,
            shipments or storage of radioactive or other toxic waste materials, public
          ▪ Employers involved in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled
          ▪ Federal, state and local government employers; also private consultants or
            experts under contract to governmental depts. and agencies (e.g., Defense
            Dept., Energy Dept., National Security Agency, CIA, FBI)

(spies and spooks)
      Frequency of false positives; that is, there is a high degree of error
       with respect to finding that an individual is lying when in fact, the
       individual is not (details below, NFE)
        Assume 90 percent accuracy (high end estimate)
        Assume rate of stealing is 5% of the working population
        If 1,000 polygraphs were given, we would expect 50 individuals would be
           lying, and given 90% accuracy, 45 of those would be detected
          However, the problem lies with the other 950 individuals
          95 (950 X .10) would be identified as lying when they had not
          Thus, 140 individuals would be identified as having lied, with 68% of them
           being false positives
          Not good

(text actually gives 3, I am asking you to learn the major one; (a) other reactions than guilt can trigger an
emotional response; (b) there are countermeasures that can be used to avoid detection - I am sure you can find
them on the web)
      There are two basic types of paper and pencil
       integrity tests
        Overt integrity tests
            ▪ Self-report inventories that measure a job applicant’s
              “attitudes” and “cognitions” toward theft that might predispose
              him/her to steal at work
        Personality-based measures
            ▪ Self-report inventories that measure integrity as part of a larger
              syndrome of antisocial behavior or organizational delinquency
              and thus not only measure theft but things like drug and alcohol
              abuse, vandalism, sabotage, assaultive actions, insubordination,
              absenteeism, excessive grievances, bogus worker
              compensation claims and violence

(this slide NFE)
  Pencil and paper integrity tests were developed to replace
   polygraph testing after the Employee Polygraph
   Protection Act was passed in 1988
  A few states have passed laws against the use of these
   tests as well, so be careful and check the state laws
  Once again the reason for concern is the high number of
   false positives that occur
  Because of the concern about theft by employers, the use
   of integrity tests is on the rise and thus more validity
   studies have been conducted recently

(this slide NFE)
   These tests indicate that these measures do correlate with
    measures of theft, detrimental behaviors (grievances filed,
    absenteeism, disciplinary actions, etc.), and overall job
   They appear to be OK to use in a selection program,
    however, at the current time, many still oppose their use
     False positives and the social implications of that – how would you
      like to be identified as a liar and cheater when you were not?
     Frequency of false positives is unknown (and even if it were, how
      would you like to be a statistic?)

         Use of drugs and alcohol have been a major concern
          since the 1960s (casting dispersions on my generation,
          the hippie generation)
         NFE, but paper and pencil drug tests - see items, p. 654,1
            No public studies that have evaluated either the reliability of
             validity of these tests!
            In one court case, the court ruled that these were illegal based on
             the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary self-

(I find it hard to believe anyone would answer these types of questions honestly!)
   The legal status of drug testing is unclear, particularly
    given the new medical marijuana laws
   Organizations face less risk using drug testing for pre-
    employment selection (testing individuals who are
    applying for a job)
   They face considerably more risk if they test existing
    workers for promotions (or transfers) or testing workers to
    detect drug users for disciplinary or counseling purposes
   NFE, but why? Applicants cannot take advantage of
    collective bargaining or challenge employment at-will
    principles, as can employees who feel they have been
    wrongly treated

   Basically,
    Do NOT institute drug testing until you consult
    with a very, very good employment lawyer


   Drug testing is not considered a medical test under
     You can administer a drug test before an offer is made
   Why?
    Those using illegal drugs are excluded from
    coverage under ADA. Thus, while many would
    consider drug testing a medical test, it is not
    considered a medical test under ADA

 15 states and the DC have passed medical marijuana
 If a person has a disability and uses medical
  marijuana, what about drug testing?
 Many laws protect employers with clauses like
  “employers are not required to accommodate the
  medical use of marijuana in any workplace.”
 However, laws are varied and there have not yet
  been many cases

         California Supreme Court, 2008
            OK to fire a worker after drug test
            Employers are under no obligation to accommodate
             medical marijuana on or off the job
            The law protects the individual from criminal prosecution
             but provides no protection on the job
            Why? Marijuana remains classified as an illegal substance
             under federal law

(I dealt with this previously, but want you to learn this point now; so drug test away)   67
   Agreed to review a case in which a customer
    service consultant was “fired” (not hired) for
    her legal, at-home use of marijuana
     Applicant disclosed her use during the hiring
     Gave the company a copy of her physician’s
     Was not hired after a pre-employment drug
      screen when she tested positive for THC.

     Don’t think so, but who knows?

(no one knows where this is going)


To top