Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

HRCI Exam PHR Topic 4 Question 108 Discussion

Actual exam question for HRCI's PHR exam
Question #: 108
Topic #: 4
[All PHR Questions]

As an HR Professional you must be familiar with several different lawsuits and their affect on human resource practices today. What legal case found that a test that has an adverse impact on a protected class is still lawful as long as the test can be shown to be valid and job related?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

The Railway Labor Act was a critical win for the management, in that it helped keep trains, and later airlines, from striking - to disrupt travel of citizens. The act was created to keep the trains moving - with a few exceptions, such as safety.

Answer option A is incorrect. The Clayton Act clarified language in the Sherman Antitrust Act, and deemed labor unions and agricultural unions exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Answer option D is incorrect. The National Industrial Recovery Act guaranteed laborers the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Answer option B is incorrect. The National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, guaranteed the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Macy
1 months ago
Wait, they're testing us on legal cases? I thought this was the 'How to Avoid Lawsuits 101' exam. Guess I'll have to use my trusty 'Plea the Fifth' strategy on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buffy
1 months ago
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975 - that's the one, I'm sure of it! Now, where did I put my crystal ball to predict the test questions?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodolfo
1 months ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976 sounds familiar, but I can't quite remember the details. Guess I should have paid more attention in my HR law class.
upvoted 0 times
Dorthy
4 days ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976 sounds familiar, but I can't quite remember the details. Guess I should have paid more attention in my HR law class.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Stephaine
1 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. Can we get a hint? I've got a test tomorrow and I really need to ace it, even if it means I have to jump through a few hoops.
upvoted 0 times
King
2 days ago
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975
upvoted 0 times
...
Jenifer
6 days ago
C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Sarah
13 days ago
B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Cortney
16 days ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Janella
2 months ago
I think the answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971. This case established the concept of disparate impact and the requirement for job-related testing.
upvoted 0 times
Timothy
14 days ago
It's important for HR professionals to be familiar with these legal cases and their impact on human resource practices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rory
17 days ago
That's correct, this case established the concept of disparate impact and the requirement for job-related testing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathryn
1 months ago
I agree, the answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Portia
2 months ago
Actually, Ronald, you are correct. The case of Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971, established that a test with adverse impact must be shown to be valid and job related to be lawful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
3 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...
Portia
3 months ago
I think the answer is A) Washington versus Davis, 1976.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77