Laserfiche WebLink
it operates as a hurdle. With the elimination of cut scores, any <br />adverse impact will be the result of other emploiTnent practices <br />which are not the subject of this lawsuit. If future hiring <br />practices of the defendants constitute either disparate treatment <br />or disparate impact they should be the subject of a separate <br />action. <br />If the testing process in amended form is lawful, cities <br />should be allowed to use it without the uncertainty created by the <br />potential that its validity is still questicnable. If the testing <br />process in its amended form is not lawful, its use should be <br />discontinued entirely. <br />Finally, plaintiffs have suggested that the defendants be <br />required to develop a new test under the direction or supervision <br />of the Court or a special master. There are a n’umber of reasons <br />why this suggestion is not reasonable or practical. One is that, <br />as evidenced by the original study, the development of a police <br />officer selection test is an extraordinarily complex and time <br />consum.ing effort requiring significant expertise and the exercise <br />of subjective professional judgment. The Court is neither well <br />suited for, nor well served by, involvement in the creation of a <br />new testing process. <br />The Court should also be m.indful of the complexities created <br />by the fact t.hat there are 3 4 individual, me .pendent defendant <br />cities. Courts have perhaps involved themselves in oversight of <br />development of a new testing process where there is a single <br />defendant, particularly where the process is for a single civil <br />35