Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Aviation Law (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/)
-   -   Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/116020-use-hogan-consistent-ada.html)

GuardPolice 08-13-2018 09:29 AM

Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
 

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 2654330)
The OMB report is far less certain of the "success" of such tests than you seem to be. But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter under the ADA if "reasonable accommodation" we're possible.

From the EEOC website:



It would seem that the onus would be in the employer to prove that the Hogan was sufficiently effective that it was a business necessity to employ it and that there was no reasonable accommodation they could make to offset whatever Hogan related issue they were rejecting applicants for. I don't think they could find a single statistician willing to say it was anything other than a crude and not terribly effective screen, especially when applied to an applicant group already possessing an FAA class one physical, an ATP, and a couple thousand hours of 121 time.

You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.


Do you think United should have been forced to hire the Horizon employee who took the Q400 for a joyride if he failed the Hogan?

And I’m beginning to suspect you’ve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you haven’t taken these tests.

rickair7777 08-13-2018 10:51 AM


Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 2654330)
You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.

That was a technicality, an unintended consequence of the language used in the ADA.

Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).

That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?

Excargodog 08-13-2018 05:49 PM


Originally Posted by GuardPolice (Post 2654348)
Do you think United should have been forced to hire the Horizon employee who took the Q400 for a joyride if he failed the Hogan?

A sort of ridiculous question giving that the guy didn't even have a pilot's license, don't you think.



And I’m beginning to suspect you’ve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you haven’t taken these tests.
Really? Did your Hogan or MMPI demonstrate any other paranoid ideation?

GuardPolice 08-13-2018 05:56 PM

Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
 

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 2654635)
A sort of ridiculous question giving that the guy didn't even have a pilot's license, don't you think.









Really? Did your Hogan or MMPI demonstrate any other paranoid ideation?

Ever heard of a hypothetical?

This whole exercise is sort of ridiculous since you haven’t experienced the tests. It sounds like you’re making excuses for failing them in advance.

And, no, I’m not demonstrating paranoid ideation. Challenging your perceived agenda isn’t paranoia.

Excargodog 08-13-2018 06:18 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2654385)

That was a technicality, an unintended consequence of the language used in the ADA.

Which 'that' are you referring to? The amended language or the original language?


Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).
I don't know. If you read the individual Supreme Court judges opinions in Sutton, it was clear that several of them who voted in favor of UAL nonetheless believed that United requiring a higher uncorrected visual standard than the federal air surgeon was both unnecessary and abhorrent to them, but that the original phrasing of the ADA simply didn't allow them to find in favor of the two sisters. A couple went so far as suggesting the ADA BE CHANGED TO DISALLOW SUCH requirements unless it coukd be shown there was a legitimate business interest, a criteria which they clearly didn't believe UALs 'well, if one lost her glasses the airplane might crash while she fumbled around for her second pair' met.


That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?
To an extent that is already the case. Tests that discriminate against protected classes are already illegal, even if you CAN show a business interest. If any test shows a bias - generally such that any test results in a minority, female, gay, etc., being disadvantaged by 20%, the rebuttable assumption is the test is illegal. And even now the DOJ is investigating Harvard Univ for using "personality" to discriminate against Asian-Americans in admissions.

I don't think this is that big a jump.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...es-in-lawsuit/

2StgTurbine 08-13-2018 06:25 PM

Why waste your time on an internet fight? Take United to court and prove the industry wrong.

Excargodog 08-13-2018 06:42 PM


Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 2654662)
Why waste your time on an internet fight? Take United to court and prove the industry wrong.

Having not yet even taken the test, far less having been disqualified by it, I lack standing to sue.

2StgTurbine 08-13-2018 06:46 PM

Then relax, have a drink, and stop worrying about it.

galaxy flyer 08-13-2018 07:40 PM

Then what would be solution absent these tests? Interviews? What standards?

GF

Excargodog 08-13-2018 08:47 PM


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 2654714)
Then what would be solution absent these tests? Interviews? What standards?

GF

All majors don't use the Hogan. Yet those that don't do not appear to have pilots substantially inferior to those that do. That would seem to scuttle the business necessity argument.

Why are you so anxious to defend a test that has little if any power to distinguish between people who will be successful in the job and those who won't?

The issue comes down to something in group statistics called Bayes Theorem. If you were using personality testing on an unscreened group - just guys off the street - personality testing like MMPI Or the Hogan would have reasonable statistical power to pick out the 1% who are schizophrenic and the 3 or 4% who are chronically depressed. The predictive value of a positive assessment or negative assessment might be pretty decent. But that isn't what you are doing. When you change the population being screened to a group that - for instance, has safely accumulated 5000 flying hours including 1500-2000 of 121 time, has passed a half dozen physicals (even FAA physicals), has a clean police record, passed the KCM check, and has a few recommendations from people with similar qualifications who know him/her, you've ALREADY eliminated the vast majority of the problem children, so even if you apply the exact same criteria, the value of the test goes way down.

Your percentage of false positives doesn't change, but there are barely any true positives to be found. Basically if you use the results to cull half the applicants, the bottom half that you are eliminating do not differ in any meaningful way from the 'top' half you are keeping.

I mean, don't take my word for it. Look up Bayes Theorem or ask some statistician. By the time you apply a screening test to a population that has already been heavily screened by other criteria you might as well just flip a coin and save the money.


https://betterexplained.com/articles...bayes-theorem/


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:44 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands