News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens. Parent comment

Re:Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens by heythere124 on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:35PM (#14913863)
Since when is discrimination based on IQ illegal?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens by chongli on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:40PM (#14913918)
Since Griggs. [0] You can't do broad-based testing such as IQ or IQ-proxies (SAT or ACT). This is why companies have shifted to hiring based on degrees.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens by trizzump on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:57PM (#14915804)
How do the cops get away with it? https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/court-oks-b...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens by ante_annum on Thursday August 03, 2017 @12:04PM (#14920753)
The argument they cops used is that people who score to highly on the qualifying exams are likely to become bored with the work they do faster, leading to a lot of turnover and the costs that go with replacing them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens by aamar on Thursday August 03, 2017 @02:44AM (#14917451)
I'm seeing this claim everywhere recently. By any chance, did you see it fairly recently, maybe on a SlateStarCodex-related community?

As indicated in your link, IQ tests and diplomas are treated the same way by Griggs: they are okay when they are a reasonable measure of job performance and not okay when they're not.

[ Parent | on HN ]