HRCI SPHR Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions
Question 1:
As an experienced HR leader, it's essential to understand critical legal rulings that have influenced EEO laws. One such Supreme Court decision ruled that requiring a high school diploma and test scores for job advancement unfairly excluded African American workers and wasn’t proven necessary for job success.
Which legal case established the concept of "disparate impact" under Title VII?
A. Griggs v. Duke Power Company – The decision that established rules against neutral practices with unfair effects
B. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green – A case outlining how to prove intentional bias in hiring
C. Washington v. Davis – A ruling on constitutional protections in hiring
D. Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke – A decision regarding affirmative action in education
Correct Answer: A
Explanation:
Understanding landmark legal decisions is vital for HR leaders to ensure compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws and to implement fair employment practices. Among the most critical rulings is Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), a case that fundamentally shaped the concept of disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the employer had implemented a policy requiring employees to possess a high school diploma and achieve a minimum score on standardized intelligence tests in order to be eligible for certain jobs or promotions. While the company claimed the policy was neutral and uniformly applied, it was shown to disproportionately disqualify African American employees, who had historically been denied equal educational opportunities. Most importantly, the company failed to provide evidence that these requirements were job-related or predictive of job performance.
The Supreme Court ruled that even facially neutral employment practices—those that appear unbiased on the surface—can violate Title VII if they result in a discriminatory effect on a protected class and are not justified by business necessity. This ruling gave rise to the legal doctrine of disparate impact, which focuses not on intent, but on the effect of an employment practice. The employer, therefore, has the burden to demonstrate that any employment requirement with adverse impact is essential to the job's performance.
Let’s briefly evaluate the other options:
B. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green – This case is also a key Title VII ruling but deals with disparate treatment, or intentional discrimination. It established the burden-shifting framework used to evaluate claims where direct evidence of bias may not be available. It’s not about policies that unintentionally exclude, as in Griggs.
C. Washington v. Davis – This case involved a similar claim but under constitutional law, not Title VII. The Supreme Court held that a discriminatory impact alone is not enough to establish a constitutional violation under the Fifth Amendment unless discriminatory intent is proven. This decision actually contrasts with Griggs, which does not require proof of intent.
D. Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke – This is a higher education case involving affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies under the Equal Protection Clause. It did not involve employment law or disparate impact under Title VII.
The landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company is pivotal in EEO law because it introduced the concept of disparate impact, a legal standard that prohibits seemingly neutral employment practices that disproportionately exclude members of protected groups without sufficient business justification. It underscores the importance of validating selection criteria and ensuring all employment practices are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, the correct answer is A.
Question 2:
A company advertises a position that involves maintaining women’s restrooms and states that only women should apply. Kelly wonders if this gender-specific hiring policy breaches federal anti-discrimination laws under Title VII. Which of the following best explains this legal situation?
A. Title VII does not prohibit hiring decisions based on gender
B. This gender-based limitation breaks federal equal employment rules
C. This is an acceptable exception under the bona fide occupational requirement clause
D. This is allowed because male applicants can apply for similar positions elsewhere in the facility
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring, promotions, job assignments, and other employment practices. This prohibition includes making job advertisements or decisions that exclude individuals based on their gender—unless a very limited exception applies, known as the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) clause.
The BFOQ exception allows employers to lawfully make employment decisions based on protected characteristics—including gender—only when such a characteristic is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or job function. The burden to justify a BFOQ lies heavily on the employer, and courts interpret this exception very narrowly.
In the scenario described, the company restricts applicants to women only, citing the job requirement of maintaining women’s restrooms. This limitation may seem exclusionary on its face, but it could fall under a valid BFOQ depending on the nature of the work. Courts have historically recognized that privacy interests, such as maintaining or cleaning restrooms, locker rooms, or dressing rooms, may qualify for a gender-based BFOQ, particularly if:
The duties involve regular presence in or interaction with individuals in states of undress,
There are strong privacy or modesty considerations, and
Employing a person of the opposite sex would create discomfort or violate privacy norms.
Thus, requiring that only female staff maintain women’s restrooms can be legally permissible under the BFOQ defense. However, this exception must be narrowly tailored and not extend beyond the specific job functions tied to privacy or modesty. It does not permit blanket discrimination or broader gender preferences in the workplace.
Let’s examine the other answer options:
A. Title VII does not prohibit hiring decisions based on gender
This is incorrect. Title VII explicitly prohibits gender-based discrimination, unless the employer can establish a BFOQ defense. So hiring decisions based solely on gender, without legal justification, violate federal law.B. This gender-based limitation breaks federal equal employment rules
This is not necessarily true. While gender-based hiring generally violates Title VII, the BFOQ exception allows for such a practice in rare cases. Restroom maintenance is one of the very few roles where the exception might legitimately apply.D. This is allowed because male applicants can apply for similar positions elsewhere in the facility
This is not a valid legal justification. The ability to apply for a different job does not excuse discrimination in the specific role being offered. Equal opportunity must exist within each job classification, unless a lawful exception applies.
Title VII generally prohibits gender-based discrimination in hiring practices. However, the BFOQ clause provides a narrowly tailored exception, allowing gender to be a qualification only if it is essential to the job’s core responsibilities. In the context of maintaining women’s restrooms, courts may consider this restriction valid due to privacy concerns. Thus, the correct explanation for the legal situation is C.
Question 3:
You're creating a training session and plan to include a federal government-issued form in your slides and participant materials. You’ll explain the form’s structure and distribute it to attendees. Is this use permitted under U.S. copyright law?
A. No, the form is copyrighted and cannot be reused without authorization
B. No, you may display it but not copy or share printed versions
C. Yes, but only if you pay for permission to distribute the material
D. Yes, federal government documents are in the public domain and can be shared freely
Correct Answer: D
Explanation:
In the United States, works created by the federal government are generally considered to be in the public domain from the moment of their creation. This rule applies to official documents, forms, reports, and publications produced by federal agencies such as the Department of Labor, the IRS, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As a result, these materials can be freely copied, reproduced, and distributed without the need to request permission or pay royalties.
Under 17 U.S. Code § 105, works of the U.S. federal government are explicitly excluded from copyright protection. This legal provision ensures that taxpayers, educators, businesses, and the general public can access and reuse government-produced information freely, promoting transparency and public education.
In the scenario described, you are planning to include a federal government-issued form in your training presentation and handouts. Since the form is an official government work, it is not subject to copyright, meaning you may:
Display it in slides,
Explain its contents,
Include it in printed participant packets,
Share it digitally or physically without restriction.
This is particularly important for HR professionals, legal trainers, and compliance educators who routinely rely on materials like:
IRS W-4 or I-9 forms,
EEOC complaint forms,
OSHA safety guidelines, or
U.S. Department of Labor posters.
Let’s evaluate the incorrect answers for clarity:
A. No, the form is copyrighted and cannot be reused without authorization
This is incorrect because federal government works are not copyrighted. There is no need for formal authorization to use or share them.B. No, you may display it but not copy or share printed versions
This misrepresents the law. Since the document is in the public domain, you may both display and reproduce it freely, including making printed copies.C. Yes, but only if you pay for permission to distribute the material
This is also false. There is no fee required to use or share a federal government document, because it belongs to the public.
One caveat to note: state and local government documents or third-party materials (such as contractor-created content, even if commissioned by the government) may carry copyright. Also, logos, seals, or insignias might be subject to separate usage restrictions, even if the underlying content is not.
If a document or form is issued by a federal government agency, it is in the public domain and can be legally and freely used for educational, training, or other public purposes. This allows instructors, HR professionals, and others to use these materials without any legal concerns about copyright infringement. Therefore, the correct answer is D.
Question 4:
Validity is a key factor when assessing how well interview questions and selection tools measure job-related traits. Which of the following is not a recognized type of validity used in recruitment?
A. Predictive validity – Measures how well a selection method forecasts future job performance
B. Content validity – Assesses whether a test reflects the actual duties of the job
C. Professional validity – Not a formally recognized form of validation in hiring
D. Construct validity – Evaluates whether a tool measures abstract qualities like intelligence
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
In recruitment and selection processes, validity refers to the degree to which a selection method accurately measures what it is intended to measure, and how well it correlates with job performance or success. Establishing validity ensures that hiring practices are fair, defensible, and aligned with job requirements, thereby reducing legal risk and improving workforce quality.
There are three primary, recognized types of validity in employee selection:
Predictive Validity:
This type evaluates how well a selection method forecasts future job performance. For example, if candidates who score high on a test also perform well on the job months later, the test has strong predictive validity. This is typically assessed through longitudinal studies where test scores are compared with subsequent job evaluations.Content Validity:
Content validity examines whether the assessment content directly reflects the actual duties or skills required for the job. For instance, a typing test for a data entry role has strong content validity because it replicates the real tasks performed in that position. Content validity is often established through job analysis, which ensures that test items align with job-related functions.Construct Validity:
This type assesses whether the tool accurately measures a specific psychological trait or abstract concept (a “construct”) such as intelligence, leadership potential, emotional stability, or attention to detail. Construct validity requires rigorous empirical evidence and often involves comparing test results with other validated instruments or observable behaviors.
Now, let’s look at the option that does not represent a recognized form of validity:
C. Professional validity
This term is not a recognized category in employment testing or selection science. It is not defined or supported by legal guidelines (such as the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) or industrial-organizational psychology literature. While the term may sound plausible, it lacks the methodological foundation and recognition associated with predictive, content, or construct validity. Therefore, it is the correct answer to this question, as it represents a fictional or incorrectly labeled concept.
Now, briefly reassessing the valid options:
A. Predictive validity is legitimate and essential for determining if selection methods lead to better hires.
B. Content validity ensures fairness and relevance, especially when assessments mirror actual job tasks.
D. Construct validity is critical when evaluating intangible qualities that impact performance but cannot be observed directly.
Validity ensures that hiring tools are both scientifically sound and legally defensible. Only predictive, content, and construct validity are recognized as standards in employee selection. Professional validity does not exist as a formal classification in industrial-organizational psychology or employment law. Therefore, the correct answer is C.
Question 5:
One major legal decision clarified that even if an employment test negatively affects a protected group, it is lawful if proven to be job-related and appropriately validated. Which court case confirmed this principle?
A. Griggs v. Duke Power Company – Established that neutral policies must be job-related if they cause adverse impact
B. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green – Focused on proving intentional discrimination
C. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody – Reinforced the need for validated employment tests
D. Washington v. Davis – Dealt with constitutional standards for employment discrimination
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
In employment law, especially under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the use of employment tests and selection procedures is highly scrutinized for their potential to produce disparate impact—that is, to unintentionally disadvantage members of protected groups. One of the most significant rulings that reinforced the importance of validating employment tests was Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975).
This Supreme Court case clarified that even if a test has a disparate impact on a protected group, it can still be lawful if the employer proves the test is job-related and has been properly validated. The decision built on the precedent set in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which introduced the concept of disparate impact, but Albemarle took the interpretation further by establishing clear standards for test validation and emphasizing the burden of proof on employers.
The background of the Albemarle case involved an employer using two tests (a verbal and a quantitative exam) to determine eligibility for higher-paying jobs. The tests were found to disproportionately disqualify African American employees, yet the employer failed to show that these tests had a demonstrable relationship to the job’s actual responsibilities. The Court ruled that since the tests lacked proper validation, their use was discriminatory and therefore violated Title VII.
This decision reinforced that employers:
Must validate any employment test that has an adverse impact,
Should rely on recognized standards for validation, such as those outlined in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,
Cannot justify discriminatory practices based on convenience or tradition if they are not proven to be essential for the role.
Let’s briefly assess the other options:
A. Griggs v. Duke Power Company – This was a foundational case for disparate impact, establishing that facially neutral practices that disproportionately affect protected groups must be job-related. However, Griggs did not define what constitutes adequate test validation, which Albemarle later clarified.
B. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green – This case outlined the burden-shifting framework for proving intentional discrimination, known as disparate treatment. It is unrelated to the validation of employment tests or their job relevance.
D. Washington v. Davis – This decision concerned constitutional law, specifically whether a test used by the D.C. police department violated the Fifth Amendment. The Court held that disparate impact alone is not unconstitutional unless intentional discrimination is proven. While important, this case pertains more to constitutional standards than Title VII.
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is the key Supreme Court case that confirmed employment tests with adverse impact can be lawful only if they are job-related and properly validated. This decision elevated the standard of proof required from employers and solidified the role of test validation in ensuring compliance with Title VII. Therefore, the correct answer is C.
Question 6:
To ensure fairness in interviews, it’s critical to be consistent when evaluating candidates for a specific role. Which method supports the reliability of your interview process?
A. Adjust the questions for each candidate based on their unique history and background
B. Prepare a standard list of job-related questions and ask the same ones to all applicants for the same position
C. Ask personalized questions based on what’s written in each resume
D. Use one identical interview template for all job roles across the organization
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
In employment interviewing, reliability refers to the consistency and dependability of the assessment process. A reliable interview ensures that every candidate is evaluated in a similar manner based on job-relevant criteria, reducing the potential for bias, inconsistency, or subjectivity. The best way to achieve this is through a structured interview format in which the same job-related questions are asked of every applicant interviewing for the same position.
By using a standardized set of questions, you make sure that:
All candidates are judged against the same criteria,
The focus remains on job-relevant competencies, not personal opinions or informal impressions,
Interviewers are more likely to make fair, evidence-based comparisons,
The organization can defend its process against claims of discrimination or favoritism, and
The process enhances predictive validity—that is, the ability to accurately forecast job performance.
Option B promotes this structured and consistent approach, supporting both reliability and legal defensibility. It doesn’t mean every interview is robotic, but it means that the core evaluation criteria are the same, which improves fairness and data comparability.
Now, let’s break down the incorrect options:
A. Adjust the questions for each candidate based on their unique history and background
While tailoring some questions based on a candidate’s resume can provide useful insight, doing so across the board without consistency can undermine reliability. Customizing the entire interview for each individual introduces variability, which makes it difficult to objectively compare candidates and increases the risk of unconscious bias.C. Ask personalized questions based on what’s written in each resume
This approach, while common in informal interviews, fails to ensure uniform evaluation. Personalized resume-based questions can be valuable as a supplement, but relying solely on them does not support a fair or structured process, and outcomes may depend too much on the resume-writing skills of the applicant rather than job-relevant competencies.D. Use one identical interview template for all job roles across the organization
This is impractical and potentially harmful. Different roles require different skill sets, behaviors, and knowledge. Using the same questions for a graphic designer, an HR manager, and a software engineer makes no sense from either a job-relevance or fairness standpoint. This approach reduces both validity and relevance.
To improve reliability, organizations should use structured interviews by asking the same, job-related questions of every applicant for the same role. This method ensures each candidate is evaluated on consistent criteria, enhances fairness, and supports defensible hiring decisions. While some tailoring or follow-up questions are acceptable, the core interview should remain standardized. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 7:
Henry learns that his company plans to permanently close a facility, impacting 650 workers. Under the WARN Act, how many days ahead of the closure must the company notify the affected employees and government officials?
A. 30-day advance notice
B. 60-day advance notice
C. 90-day advance notice
D. 120-day advance notice
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) is a federal law that aims to protect workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers to provide advance notice of significant workforce reductions, such as plant closures or mass layoffs. The intent of the law is to give affected employees enough time to seek alternative employment or retraining before their job loss occurs.
According to the WARN Act, employers must provide at least 60 calendar days’ advance written notice before conducting:
A plant closing that affects 50 or more full-time employees at a single site of employment, or
A mass layoff involving either 500 or more employees, or 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer’s active workforce at the site.
In the scenario provided, the planned facility closure will impact 650 workers, which clearly qualifies as a plant closing affecting a large number of employees. Therefore, under the WARN Act’s provisions, the company is required to issue a 60-day notice.
This notice must be given to:
Affected employees, or their representatives (such as a union),
The state dislocated worker unit, and
The chief elected official of the local government where the closure is taking place.
Failure to comply with the 60-day notice requirement can expose the employer to serious penalties, including:
Paying back pay and benefits to affected workers for the period of violation (up to 60 days),
Civil penalties for failure to notify local government entities.
Now, let’s examine why the other options are incorrect:
A. 30-day advance notice
This is not sufficient under the WARN Act. Although 30 days is a common benchmark in some HR or business practices, it does not meet the federal legal requirement for advance notification under WARN.C. 90-day advance notice
While providing more notice than required is allowed and even advisable in some cases, the WARN Act mandates only 60 days. Ninety days is not a legal requirement.D. 120-day advance notice
Similarly, a 120-day notice goes beyond the legal obligation. While a company may choose to do this for employee goodwill, public relations, or planning purposes, it is not required by the WARN Act.
Important Notes:
There are exceptions to the 60-day rule, such as:
Unforeseeable business circumstances,
Natural disasters, or
If a faltering company is actively seeking capital or business that would avoid closure and providing notice would jeopardize that effort.
However, these exceptions are narrowly interpreted and employers must document their justification carefully.
Under the WARN Act, when an employer plans a major layoff or facility closure impacting a large number of workers (such as the 650 in this case), they must provide a 60-day written notice to both the affected employees and appropriate government agencies. This ensures that workers are treated fairly and have time to transition. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 8:
Although the WARN Act usually requires 60 days’ notice before large layoffs or closures, it includes exceptions. Which of the following qualifies as a valid reason to reduce or skip this notice period?
A. The business owner unexpectedly dies
B. A sudden natural event, like a flood or earthquake, shuts down operations
C. The business is bought by another company
D. Operations are shifted to another location in the U.S.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act is a U.S. federal law that requires certain employers to provide at least 60 days’ notice in advance of plant closings or mass layoffs. However, the law includes specific exceptions that allow employers to shorten or waive the notice period under unusual circumstances, provided they meet specific criteria and still notify affected parties as soon as possible.
Among the limited exceptions recognized under the WARN Act, the most relevant to this question is the “natural disaster” exception.
Natural Disaster Exception (Valid):
If a company’s closure or layoff is directly caused by a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought, storm, or similar catastrophic event, the employer is not required to give the full 60-day notice. In such cases, employers are expected to issue as much notice as practicable, along with a statement explaining why full notice was not possible.
Option B, which refers to “a sudden natural event, like a flood or earthquake, shutting down operations,” directly qualifies under this natural disaster exception. Therefore, it is the correct answer.
Let's examine the other options:
A. The business owner unexpectedly dies
While unfortunate, the sudden death of a business owner does not automatically exempt a company from its WARN Act obligations. The law is focused on the business entity's responsibilities, not individual leadership. The organization is still expected to meet notice requirements or demonstrate another qualifying exception (like unforeseeable business circumstances, which this scenario does not clearly meet).C. The business is bought by another company
A merger or acquisition does not by itself qualify as an exception to WARN notice requirements. If the sale results in a layoff or closure, then either the buyer or seller may be responsible for WARN compliance, depending on who controls employment decisions during the transition. The act does not waive obligations simply because of a change in ownership.D. Operations are shifted to another location in the U.S.
Relocation does not automatically exempt the employer from providing notice. WARN does include a “relocation or consolidation” provision, but it generally still requires 60 days’ notice unless the move is sudden and meets criteria under the unforeseeable business circumstances exception. Option D describes a planned relocation, not an emergency.
WARN Act Exceptions:
The WARN Act recognizes three main exceptions to the full 60-day notice requirement:
Faltering Company – Applies to plant closings, not layoffs, when the company is actively seeking new capital or business to stay open, and giving notice would jeopardize those efforts.
Unforeseeable Business Circumstances – Covers unexpected events (e.g., sudden market crashes, loss of a major client) that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice should have been given.
Natural Disaster – Applies when a disaster like a flood, earthquake, or storm directly causes a closure or layoff.
Only B, the occurrence of a sudden natural event, fits one of the specific and legally recognized exceptions under the WARN Act. While employers are still expected to notify employees as soon as practicable, the full 60-day requirement may be waived in such extreme cases. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 9:
When organizations reduce their workforce, they sometimes provide support to help displaced employees re-enter the job market. What is the correct term for these services, which might include resume help, job coaching, and interview training?
A. Employee productivity services
B. Outplacement support
C. Legal compliance planning
D. Exit survey programs
Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
When an organization initiates a reduction in force (RIF)—whether through layoffs, restructuring, or downsizing—it often seeks to reduce the negative impact on departing employees. One common and supportive strategy is the provision of outplacement services, also known as outplacement support.
Outplacement support refers to the range of services that help displaced employees transition successfully to new employment opportunities. These services are usually offered free of charge to the employee, paid for by the employer, and are facilitated either by internal HR teams or third-party firms specializing in career transition services.
Common elements of outplacement support include:
Resume building assistance – Helping individuals craft professional and competitive resumes tailored to their industries.
Job search strategies – Offering practical advice on job boards, networking, and leveraging social media.
Career counseling and coaching – Providing personalized guidance to help people assess their strengths and job market opportunities.
Interview preparation – Conducting mock interviews, offering feedback, and building confidence for real interview situations.
Skill assessment and training referrals – Evaluating skills and possibly connecting individuals with upskilling or retraining opportunities.
Emotional support – Some programs also include counseling to deal with the psychological impact of job loss, which can be significant.
The purpose of outplacement support is not just to aid the affected employees, but also to protect the employer’s brand, reduce potential legal liability, and maintain morale among remaining staff. It signals that the organization cares about its people, even in difficult times, and can play a critical role in preserving its reputation.
Why the other options are incorrect:
A. Employee productivity services
This term is too vague and usually refers to tools or programs that help current employees perform better at their jobs—not those who are exiting the company.C. Legal compliance planning
While ensuring compliance with laws (like the WARN Act) is important during layoffs, this option refers to internal risk mitigation and legal strategy, not to services aimed at supporting exiting employees.D. Exit survey programs
These are data collection tools used to understand why employees leave, typically in cases of voluntary separation. They help improve organizational practices but do not support job transition for displaced staff.
The correct term for services such as resume help, job coaching, and interview training provided to laid-off employees is outplacement support. These services play a key role in ensuring smoother career transitions and demonstrating corporate responsibility. They benefit both the employee and the employer by reducing the emotional and financial stress of job loss while safeguarding the company’s public image. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 10:
A company wants to build a more inclusive workforce by actively recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups while still assessing all candidates equally. What term describes this kind of hiring approach?
A. Biased selection strategy
B. Diversity-based hiring preference
C. Targeted outreach recruitment
D. Equal opportunity compliance initiative
Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The practice described in this scenario—reaching out proactively to underrepresented groups while maintaining equal evaluation standards for all candidates—is known as targeted outreach recruitment. This approach is a well-established part of many organizations’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts and is used to expand the applicant pool to include a more diverse range of qualified candidates.
Targeted outreach recruitment does not alter hiring standards or create quotas. Instead, it focuses on where and how organizations advertise or promote open positions so that members of historically underrepresented or marginalized groups are more aware of and able to apply for opportunities.
Key features of targeted outreach recruitment:
Active engagement with diverse communities, professional organizations, and minority-serving institutions (e.g., HBCUs, women's colleges, veteran networks).
Posting jobs in diversity-focused job boards or publications.
Partnering with advocacy or community organizations that support candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.
Encouraging internal referrals from employees who are part of underrepresented groups.
By doing this, companies ensure that their recruitment process reaches a broader and more inclusive range of applicants without compromising the merit-based assessment of qualifications. This method promotes fairness and equity, while increasing the likelihood of building a workforce that reflects the diverse makeup of the society or customer base the company serves.
Now, let’s review why the other options are incorrect:
A. Biased selection strategy
This implies discrimination or favoritism, which goes against the principle of equal opportunity employment. A biased selection strategy may open a company up to legal liability and is not aligned with fair hiring practices.B. Diversity-based hiring preference
This phrase suggests giving preferential treatment to certain demographic groups during the selection phase, which could raise legal and ethical concerns if not handled carefully. In contrast, targeted outreach focuses on recruitment—not selection—ensuring that everyone is judged equally once they apply.D. Equal opportunity compliance initiative
While related, this term is broader and regulatory-focused. Equal Opportunity (EO) initiatives ensure that organizations comply with federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination, such as Title VII and the ADA. These are essential but differ from the strategic recruitment efforts described in the question.
Targeted outreach recruitment is a proactive hiring strategy that expands access to job opportunities for individuals from underrepresented groups, while still maintaining equal standards for evaluating all applicants. It allows companies to build more inclusive and representative workforces without introducing bias into the selection process. Thus, the correct answer is C.
