Comment by woadwarrior01

There are dozens - dozens! - of us outside the US.

I drew the opposite conclusion from your link: (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests that are not a 'reasonable measure of job performance'). All an employer would need to say is "We've found that people who can't dots-in-box are bad at cody"

I just dug up the link (https://www.alvalabs.io/hiring-system/assessments/logic-test) to take another look, and sure enough, there's giant text saying "A strong predictor of job performance." Consider HR's arses covered!

They have the nerve to label it is a "logic" test. I bet I'd be the only one on their staff able to write out simple natural deduction proofs.

apparently not

you can wait for a reply from tptacek later in the day, or use the search at the bottom to find previous replies

here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tptacek%20iq%20test&sort=byDat...

NAL, but have worked in this. Griggs is a bit more complicated than that, and its progeny modify application anyway.

The TLDR is that arbitrary tests are permissible if there's no disparate impact. Tests with disparate impact are permissible iff they are not arbitrary (i.e., "directly" assess job responsibilities).

So, for example, Leetcode may have disparate impact, but it's "direct" enough to be permissible. On the other hand, most "AI Assessments" are actually so badly implemented that they're effectively random - and a coin flip won't have disparate impact.

Anecdotally, I've only seen them done in northern European companies, but every northern European company I've interviewed for had them. It seems to be a regional-ish thing.