Study paper on psychological testing and human rights in education and employment : a study paper prepared for the Ontario Law Reform Commission

188 Pages·1996·9.4 MB·English

by  MacKay, A. Wayne

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Osgoode Hall Law School and Law Commission of Ontario
http://www.archive.org/details/studypaperonpsycOOmack
STUDY PAPER
ON
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AND HUMAN RIGHTS
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
IN
ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION
A
Study Paper prepared for the
Ontario Law Reform Commission
by
A. WAYNE MacKAY and PAMELA RUBIN
Ontario
996
The Ontario Law Reform Commission was established by the Ontario Government in 1964 as an
independent legal research institute. It was the first Law Reform Commission to be created in the
Commonwealth. It recommends reform in statute law, common law, jurisprudence, judicial and
quasi-judicial procedures, and in issues dealing with the administration ofjustice in Ontario.
Commissioners
John D. McCamus, MA, LLB, LLM, Chair
Nathalie Des Rosiers, LLB, LLM
Sanda Rodgers, BA, LLB, BCL, LLM
Judge Vibert Lampkin, LLB, LLM
Counsel
J.J. Morrison, BA (Hon), LLB, LLM, Senior Counsel
Donald F. Bur, LLB, LLM, BCL, PhD
Barbara J. Hendrickson, MA, LLB, LLM
ChiefAdministrator
Mary Lasica, BAA
Secretaries
Tina Afonso
v
Cora Calbcterio
The Commission's office is located on the Eleventh Floor at 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M5G 2K1. Telephone [phone]. FAX [phone].
CanadianCataloguing in Publication Data
Ontario Law Reform Commission.
Study Paperon Psychological Testing and Human Rights in Education and Employment
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-7778-5942-4
I.Ontario. 2. I. Title.
KE01144.057 1996 347.713'052 C96-964057-9
Ontario
Law Reform
Commission
Ontario
The Honourable Charles Hamick
Attorney General for Ontario
DearAttorney:
I have the honour to submit the Ontario Law Reform Commission's Study
Paper on Psychological TestingandHuman Rights in Education andEmployment.
As the Commission will cease operations at the end ofthis month, the Commission
will not publish a final report on this subject.
This study paperthus completes the fourth in a series ofCommission projects
concerning testing issues. The first three resulted on the publication ofour Report
on TestingforAids (1992), Report on Drug andAlcohol Testing in the Workplace
(1992) and Report on Genetic Testing(\996).
December, 1996 John D. McCamus
Chair
[iii]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments
ix
Notes on Authors xi
CHAPTER A BRIEF HISTORY OF TESTING AND THE
1
HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK IN CANADA
1
INTRODUCTION
1. 1
TESTING AND THE STATUS QUO
2. 1
DEFINITION OF TESTING AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
3. 3
(A) EvaluatingTests 5
(i) Validation Techniques 5
(ii) Reliability 10
4. TESTING AND THE HISTORICAL MAINTENANCE OF THE STATUS QUO 12
THE HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
5. 17
(A) Basic EqualityLaw Protections 17
(i) The Charter 17
(ii) The Ontario Human Rights Code 19
(B) Adverse Impact Discriminationand Systemic Discrimination 22
(i) General 22
(ii) Remedies 24
(iii) Limitations ofHuman Rights Commissions 26
6. EQUALITY: TOWARDS AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY 30
(A) TestingANDthe Various Grounds OF Discrimination 33
(i) Socio-Economic Status 33
[vl
VI
(ii) Race 37
(iii) Gender 40
(iv) Ethnic Origin, Place ofOrigin and First Language 42
(v) Disability 47
(vi) "Intersectionality" and Compound Discrimination 50
(b) ConcludingThoughts on the Egalitarian SocietyandTesting 53
7. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND TESTING IN CANADA 54
(A) Problems OF Privacy, CoNFiDENTL\LiTYANDAccess 54
(i) Privacy 54
(ii) Confidentiality and Access 56
(iii) Compounding Problems and the Need for Legislation 56
(B) LegalFrameworkforPrivacyin Canada 58
(i) Constitutional Protection 58
(ii) Privacy Legislation Applicable in Ontario 59
(c) Prfvacy UNDERTHE Charter: ConcludingThoughts 63
CHAPTER THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
2 65
INTRODUCTION 65
1.
2. TYPES OF TESTS 67
(A) LicensingANDCertification Testing 68
(B) AbilityTesting 68
(c) IntegrityandPersonalityTesting 69
(D) Intelligence Testing 70
3. DISPARATE IMPACT DISCRIMFNATION AND TESTING IN U.S. LAW 70
vu
(A) EarlyU.S. LegislativeApproaches toTesting 72
(b) The EarlyProactive Tone in U.S. Jurisprudence 73
(c) CurrentU.S. Approaches to BusinessNecessity, andthe
Employer's BurdenOF Proof 75
(d) EstablishingaPrimaFacie CaseofDisparate Impact
Discrimination inTHE U.S 80
(e) RightingWards Cove: The Civil Rights Actof 1991 82
CANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE ONINDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND
4.
TESTING IN EMPLOYMENT 85
(A) GeneralBackground 85
(B) TestingANDAdverse EffectAnalysis: Action Travail 88
(c) EstablishingA Prima FacieCaseAgainstTesting: The Tribunal's
Decision InActionTravail 93
(D) EmployerBurdens: BusinessNecessity, Accommodationand
Undue Hardship 96
(i) "Reasonable and Bona Fide in the Circumstances" 97
(ii) Test Validation, Job Relatedness and Business Necessity 98
(iii) Validation in the Arbitration Context 103
(iv) Duty to Accommodate Without Bearing Undue Hardship 105
(E) Lessons intheAnalysis of Testinginthe Human Rights Context:
the PersadCase 109
BACKDOOR OF THE CODE: SECTION
5. 23(2) 1 17
6. PERSONALITY AND INTEGRITY TESTS: SPECIAL CASES 1 19
A CENTRAL INDEPENDENT BODY FOR THE EVALUATION OF TESTS
7.
FOR USE IN EMPLOYMENT 122
8. PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
126
VUl
CHAPTERS EDUCATION
131
INTRODUCTION: TESTING AND THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION
1. 131
TYPES OF TESTS USED
2. 134
3. CLASSIFICATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 135
(A) IdentificationofExceptional Childrenthrough Testing,
ANDTHE DutyOF Fairness 136
(b) Equality, The Charterand Human Rights Legislation 140
(c) Intelligence Testing 145
(D) Future Directions forTestingin Special Education 148
4. ADMISSIONS TESTING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 150
(A) Score Differentials AmongGroups 150
(B) Legal ProtectionAgainstDisparate Impactin HigherEducation 152
(i) Are Colleges and Universities Subject to the Charter and Human
Rights Legislation? 152
(ii) U.S. Directions 153
(iii) Canadian Possibilities for Adverse Impact and Systemic
Discrimination Analysis 155
(iv) The LSAT Example 158
5. PRIVACY, CONFIDENTD\LITY AND ACCESS 161
(A) General PrivacyConcerns in the Education Context 161
(B) Special Concerns 164
(i) Computer-assisted Testing 164
(ii) Children as the Subject ofEducational Research 165
(iii) Access to Test Documents 168
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
169