继续上面提供的例子，我们将除以.2778/.4752=.5846。由于这一比例低于4/5s或.80，我们的认知能力测试对非裔美国人申请人群体产生了不利影响。我们没有遵守，因为这表明存在种族歧视。
Part 1 第1部分
Data for the Cognitive Ability Test 第1部分
Now it is your responsibility to complete an evaluation of the organization’s selection procedures by answering the following questions. Please be complete when answering the questions and always remember to include answers to all parts of the questions.
现在，您有责任通过回答以下问题来完成对组织选拔程序的评估。回答问题时请完整，并始终记得包括问题所有部分的答案。
MINI HR CASE #1 QUESTIONS 小型人力资源案例#1问题
For the given data, is there any evidence of adverse impact against any race, sex, or ethnic group (please provide all your calculations with your answer). If so, against which protected group?对于给定的数据，是否有任何证据表明对任何种族、性别或族裔群体有不利影响（请提供您的所有计算结果和答案）。如果是，针对哪个受保护的组？
Based upon the data, there is evidence of adverse impact against certain groups in different recruiting processes.
Assignment范文是根据数据分析，并且有证据表明，在不同的招聘过程中，某些群体会受到不利影响。
Cognitive Ability Test 认知能力测试
Selection ratio for Caucasians => 0.475 白种人的选择率=>0.475
Selection ratio for African Americans => 0.277 非裔美国人的选择率=>0.277
Indicator (Ethnicity/Racial) => 0.58 指标（种族/种族）=>0.58
Selection ratio for Hispanics => 0.4313 西班牙裔的选择率=>0.4313
Indicator (Ethnicity/Racial) => 0.908 指标（种族/种族）=>0.908
Selection ratio for Men => 0.4415 男性选择比例=>0.4415
Selection ratio for Women => 0.514 女性的选择比例=>0.514
Indicator (Sex) => 1.16 指标（性别）=>1.16
Since majority [Caucasians] to minority [African American] selection ratio is 0.58 which is less than 4/5s or .80, there is adverse impact in our cognitive ability test on the African American applicant pool.
由于大多数[白人]与少数[非裔美国人]的选择率为0.58，小于4/5s或.80，因此我们的认知能力测试对非裔美国人申请人库产生了不利影响。
Interview 面试
Selection ratio for Caucasians => 0.776 白种人的选择率=>0.776
Selection ratio for African Americans => 0.625 非裔美国人的选择率=>0.625
Indicator (Ethnicity/Racial) => 0.805 指标（种族/种族）=>0.805
Selection ratio for Hispanics => 0.55 西班牙裔的选择率=>0.55
Indicator (Ethnicity/Racial) => 0.708 指标（种族/种族）=>0.708
Selection ratio for Men => 0.734 男性的选择比例=>0.734
Selection ratio for Women => 0.416 女性的选择比例=>0.416
Indicator (Sex) => 0.566 指标（性别）=>0.566
Since majority [Caucasians] to minority [Hispanics] selection ratio is 0.708 which is less than 4/5s or .80, there is adverse impact in our interview process on the Hispanics applicant pool.
由于多数[白人]与少数[西班牙裔]的选择比例为0.708，小于4/5s或.80，因此我们的面试过程对西班牙语申请人库产生了不利影响。
Since majority [Men] to minority [Women] selection ratio is 0.566 which is less than 4/5s or .80, there is adverse impact in our cognitive ability test on the women applicant pool.
由于大多数[男性]与少数[女性]的选择比例为0.566，小于4/5s或.80，我们的认知能力测试对女性申请人库产生了不利影响。
If the total selection process for a job has no adverse impact, should the individual components of the selection system be evaluated for adverse impact? Why or why not?如果一个职位的整个选拔过程没有不利影响，是否应该评估选拔系统的各个组成部分的不利影响？为什么？
According to section 4C of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, “If information shows that the total selection process does not have an adverse impact, the Federal enforcement agencies, in the exercise of their administrative and prosecutorial discretion, in usual circumstances, will not expect a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact” (“Uniform Guidelines”, para. 15). However, this section goes on to state that individual components should be evaluated for adverse impact under the following conditions
根据《员工选拔程序统一指南》第4C节，“如果信息表明整个选择过程没有产生不利影响，在通常情况下，联邦执法机构在行使其行政和检察自由裁量权时，不会期望用户评估个别组成部分的不利影响”。然而，本节继续说明，应在以下条件下评估单个部件的不利影响
“where the selection procedure is a significant factor in the continuation of patterns of assignments of incumbent employees caused by prior discriminatory employment practices.” (“Uniform Guidelines”, para. 15)“由于以往的歧视性就业做法，甄选程序是延续在职雇员分配模式的一个重要因素。”
“where the weight of court decisions or administrative interpretations hold that a specific procedure is not job related in the
