Laserfiche WebLink
explained by Dr. Sackett and adnitted by Dr. Friedland, if two <br />tests with adverse irpact are combined, the resulting adverse <br />impact is greater than that of the single test having the greater <br />adverse impact. EIx.2099,2099A. <br />Another suggestion was that the MPRS use the amended testing <br />procedures but that the Court would maintain jurisdiction to <br />reevaluate the validity oi the testing process in light of its <br />future impact on blacks. This suggestion is simply not practical. <br />No other testing process available to cities for police officer <br />selection would be subject to an automatic determination of <br />invalidity merely upon a showing of adverse impact. Under this <br />proposal, the validity of t.he testing process would not only be <br />open to Question, but the validity itself would be determined by <br />its adverse impact rat.her than its :ob relevancy. In the case of <br />all other testing processes, a process which results in adverse <br />impact can be defended if it is sufficiently job related. It is <br />extremely unlikely that any city would voluntarily continue to use <br />the MPRS testing process under such circumstances. Nor would it be <br />reasonable to compel any city to use the MPRS testing process under <br />such circumstances, since, if the process has an unacceptable <br />adverse impact in the future, the cities would incur liability for <br />use of a process which they had beer, ordered by the Court to use. <br />In any case, the Court m.ay approve the use of the testing <br />px'ocess without the use of cut scores. .>t this occurs, the MPRS <br />written examination will no longer be a hurdle; and the success <br />rate on one part of the selection process is only problematic if it <br />I <br />Jli