Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Discrimination in an employment process can be extremely costly for company due to possible legal suits, and often manifests itself in the form of disparate impact, which is a form of unintentional discrimination. (Robinson) Consequently, I will be analyzing your hiring process for signs of discrimination using various methods. Stock statistics compare the percentage of a group within your organization with their availability in the relevant population of qualified people interested in the position. A small amount of variance is acceptable as different utilization rates do not always demonstrate adverse impact of discriminatory hiring practices. (Phillips) By looking at the statistics you have provided me with, I see some evidence of adverse impact using stock statistics
I performed these analyses using the 4/5’s rule which states that if the selection rate for a protected group (for example, African Americans) is less than 4/5’s of the rate the most selected group, the hiring process is most likely suffering from adverse impact. Comparing men to women, we have a hiring rate of 8 percent for men and 11.43 for women. By dividing 11.43 by 8 percent we arrive at an impact ratio of .69. This is less than .8 and is evidence of adverse impact. Next, we will move onto the selection rates of various races. Asians have the highest employment rate of 11.2, then Whites with 9.1, Hispanics with 8.33, and finally Blacks with 8%. By following the same process as comparing men to women, I have found that Hispanic applicants have a disparate impact ratio of .74 and Black applicants have a ratio of .71. Both of these ratios are below .8 and are evidence of disparate impact. We must tread carefully, as flow statistics are unique, in that, they are the only statistic that can establish adverse impact by