Employment Selection and Training Development Essay

One would think that the employee selection process would be simple, but it is not. Two cases will demonstrate what is not, and what the correct way to approach a hiring situation is. There are specific ways to handle each situation that will minimize the risk to the company during the selection process. These alternative solutions will prevent the companies from ending up in court for discrimination in the hiring process. Speedy Delivery Service (SDC) The first case example chosen to demonstrate improper employment selection practices is Speedy Delivery Service. SDC would prefer not to hire women to perform deliveries for them. To discourage women from applying, SDC has decided to show extremely large, bulky, heavy packages to the women that are interested in the job. The prospective female applicants are lead to believe the job requires them to carry these object up multiple flights of steps without assistance, therefore discouraging them from applying for the job. Male applicants are not shown this same demonstration, therefore encouraging the male applicants (Moran, 2008. Ch. 2). The strategy that SDC is using in this case will increase the risks for the company to be charged with discriminatory hiring practices. This is a prime example of gender discrimination. Employers cannot overstate the physical requirements for a job. The misrepresentation of physical requirements goes against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is fine for employers to test for prospective employees abilities to perform required activities, as long as the tests are the same for each individual. Whether the prospective employee is male, or female the test have to be identical. Once SDC has chosen potential new hires, they can have prospective employees demonstrate that they have the capability to meet the physical requirements to perform the deliveries. If a female prospect has the same potential as a male prospect, they should be given the opportunity to have the job. If the females are not chosen, SDC must be able to explain why the female was not chosen. Long and Short Long and Short is worried about hiring a prospective employee that has children. They are need of someone that can work a specific schedule and  are concerned that if they choose a parent, the hours will be limited. Long and Short chooses to ask the prospective employee if they have children. If Long and Short does not hire this individual, there is a possibility that they will assume it is because they have children. This opens the company up to a huge risk of discriminatory hiring practices (Moran, 2008. Ch. 2). When hiring for a specific shift, or if worried about whether a new hire can work the required schedule a company can clearly find out this information. Without making specific request referencing children, Long and Short could simply ask about restrictions on the days or hours that a prospective employee can work. If for example, the position is for an evening shift and the prospective employee states that they can only work dayshifts, then the company has every right not to hire this individual. As long as each prospective employee is asked the same exact questions referencing availability for shifts, there is no discrimination. In asking a generic question to each prospective employee, the risk to the company is reduced. Conclusion Proper employment selection processes can decrease the risk of a company being sued for discriminatory hiring practices. The primary practice is to ensure that all prospective employees are tested the exact same, and asked the exact same questions. You cannot make testing processes lean towards or against a specific race or gender. The hiring process requires each individual to have the same opportunity to obtain employment. If it is shown that the testing practices exceeds the need for the job, then this is a discriminatory practice and the company will be in a higher risk. Therefore, it is the job of the hiring team to ensure that proper hiring practices are followed. References Moran, J. (2008). Employment Law (4th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection.