312 Applicants, One Unvalidated Exam
A state agency received 312 applications for four HR Analyst vacancies. Screening leaves 140 minimally qualified candidates. All 140 take a 60-item written exam, and the pass point is set at 70. Results show that 92 percent of white candidates and 68 percent of Black candidates scored 70 or above. Candidates who pass are ranked by exam score plus a structured interview score, and the agency certifies the top three for each vacancy under its rule of three. A veteran with a compensable disability scored 66 and has asked that the pass point be lowered so that his 10-point preference can be applied. The hiring manager, who needs to fill the positions this quarter, asks whether it is "faster to just lower the cut score to 65 for everyone, or only for him." No job analysis was performed when the exam was created; it was carried over from a 1998 clerical classification.
1. How should the agency respond to the veteran's request?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two concepts the request blends together: preference and minimum qualification.
- Veterans' preference generally operates at the point of selection - ranking, certification, or appointment among candidates who have met the announced requirements. It does not typically waive a minimum qualification or a passing score unless the governing statute expressly says so.
- Lowering the pass point for one candidate is not preference; it is a special exception to an announced requirement, and it exposes the agency to challenges from other non-selected candidates and to merit-system violations.
- Action: verify the exact preference statute and civil service rule. If the statute allows preference only after a passing score, the answer to the candidate is that he did not meet the announced cut score. If state law permits an alternative route (for example, adding points to a passing score or placing him on a separate eligible list), use that route and document the authority.
Neither option the manager proposed - 65 for everyone, or 65 just for him - is the right first question. The right first question is what the governing preference law permits.
2. Analyze the exam results and recommend what the agency should do about the exam and the cut score.
Read the worked answer
Adverse impact screen: 68 / 92 = 0.74, below the 0.80 guideline often used as a rule of thumb. That triggers a need to justify the procedure - and here there is little to justify it. The exam has no job analysis, was written for a different classification, and its cut score appears to be arbitrary.
Why "lower it to 65" is not a fix: changing a cut point to reduce a disparity without validating the instrument does not make it job-related; it simply moves the line and may be challenged from the other direction by candidates who now fail.
Defensible options, roughly in order:
- Stop using the exam for this hiring cycle and select on a validated, job-related basis - structured interview, training-and-experience rating against the classification specification, work sample.
- Commission a job analysis and validation study (content or criterion-related) before the next cycle, with subject-matter experts, and set the cut score by a defensible standard-setting method rather than a round number.
- Document the interim decision and the reasoning so the agency can show it acted on the disparity rather than ignoring it.
Filling four vacancies is a legitimate operational need, but it does not justify using an instrument the agency cannot defend.
3. What documentation and communication steps should accompany the decision?
Read the worked answer
- Record the analysis - pass rates by group, the ratio, the decision made, who made it, and the alternatives considered. If a charge or audit follows, this is the exhibit that answers the question.
- Preserve test records consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which in general call for retention of selection records for two years (longer if a charge is pending).
- Notify all candidates in writing of any change in the process and the basis for it, in neutral language that does not disclose anyone's individual results.
- Brief the hiring manager and panel on why the process is changing, so that informal comments do not create a record of animus.
- Coordinate with civil service and counsel before altering the certification process, since rule-of-three and eligible-list requirements are usually set in statute or rule, not in HR discretion.
- Give the veteran a specific written answer citing the governing preference provision, not a general refusal.