The same opportunity
to show real ability.
Consistency matters. So does context. Build a process that measures the work and gives people a fair chance to demonstrate it.
Evidence relevant
to the role.
Assess the essential skills. Use shared criteria. Know what each stage measures.
Human judgement.
A clear chance
to demonstrate them.
Understand the task. Request accommodations. Explain the context behind a result.
Change the process.
Improve the opportunity.
Testing every available skill
Choose only what the job actually requires.Treating every interruption as a concern
Ask what happened before drawing a conclusion.Using one format for everyone
Provide a route to discuss accommodations.Letting a score decide
Combine assessments, interviews and relevant work.Measure outcomes.
Investigate differences.
Fairness reporting is planned for a later release. Numerical rules alone cannot establish that a hiring process is fair or lawful. Job relevance, sample size and the wider selection process matter.
Read the EEOC guidanceAccommodations, outcomes and human review
Start with job relevance
Write down the tasks the person will perform and the skills each task requires. Select tests because they measure those skills, not because a long assessment looks rigorous.
A language-heavy test may be inappropriate for a role that does not require that language level. A fast typing threshold may exclude capable people if speed is not essential to the work.
Make accommodations part of the process
Explain how candidates can request extra time, assistive technology or an alternative format before they begin. Discuss the barrier and the skill being assessed, rather than assuming one adjustment fits everyone.
The product brief proposes per-candidate extra-time options. Employers remain responsible for the appropriateness of their process and applicable obligations.
Monitor outcomes, then investigate
Fairness reporting is planned for a later release. The intended workflow uses optional, consent-based demographic information stored separately from individual candidate scores.
Selection-rate comparisons can flag a concern, but a numerical screening rule alone cannot establish that a process is fair or unlawful. Sample size, job relevance and the full selection process matter. Obtain qualified advice for legal conclusions.
Keep decisions human and explainable
Use test results alongside structured interviews and relevant work samples. Keep a record of what each stage measures and how the evidence was considered.
Integrity concerns deserve contextual review. Technical interruptions and accessibility tools can produce unusual signals. Give the candidate an opportunity to explain before making a decision.
Build a more relevant assessment.
Choose your role first, then the plan that fits your hiring round.