I didn't claim otherwise. It should however be self evident that courts have no solid basis on which to make such a call. Judges don't know anything about running power plants, hiring employees, or really anything on that matter.

This is why human rights laws are always terrible in practice. They require the courts to make decisions well outside the bounds of their expertise.

> Judges don't know anything about running power plants, hiring employees, or really anything on that matter.

This is why both parties hire the best lawyers they can, and the best expert witnesses, to make the case for their side. We cannot require that every decision in the world be made by experts in the decision domain - sometimes they have to be made by people we've entrusted to make decisions (and in particular, decisions intended to be guided by the law).

The court regarded the test as unrelated to the demands of the job, despite a large body of research showing that the test is generally predictive of performance on a wide class of jobs, which that job is in.

The bar was set to, "You must have good statistical evidence that this test is applicable to this job." That is an extremely high bar, that very few private companies are ever going to be able to collect sufficient data to establish.

In fact the only organization that I'm aware of which can pass that bar is the US military. Which is why they are allowed to use ability tests in hiring and initial promotions that no private company would be allowed to use.