Which item represents a court ruling addressing discriminatory effects of police hiring examinations on minority applicants?

• A. in-service training
• B. probationary period
• C. job relatedness
• D. Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission

Answer: (D)

Disparate impact and test validity in policingHiring exams must be shown to measure qualities that are truly related to performing the job. Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission is the landmark ruling that tackles exactly this issue in the police context. It established that when a civil service exam or similar hiring test produces a disproportionate adverse effect on minority applicants, the issuing body must demonstrate that the test is job-related and validated to predict performance. If the test isn’t shown to be closely tied to job requirements or validated for accuracy, its use can be unlawful due to discriminatory impact. That emphasis on job-relatedness and validation in the face of potential bias is why this court ruling best fits the question.

In-service training and a probationary period are administrative practices, not court rulings about discriminatory effects. Job relatedness is a standard used in evaluating tests, but it’s a concept, not a ruling addressing discriminatory impact.