PART 60-3—UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES (1978) Link to an amendment published at 91 FR 54474, Aug. 21, 2026. Authority: Secs. 201, 202, 203, 203(a), 205, 206(a), 301, 303(b), and 403(b) of E.O. 11246; as amended by sec. 715 of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-14). Source: 43 FR 38295, 38314, August 25, 1978, unless otherwise noted. General Principles § 60-3.1 Statement of purpose. A. Need for uniformity—Issuing agencies. B. Purpose of guidelines. C. Relation to prior guidelines. § 60-3.2 Scope. A. Application of guidelines. B. Employment decisions. C. Selection procedures. D. Limitations. E. Indian preference not affected. § 60-3.3 Discrimination defined: Relationship between use of selection procedures and discrimination. A. Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified. B. Consideration of suitable alternative selection procedures. § 60-3.4 Information on impact. A. Records concerning impact. B. Applicable race, sex, and ethnic groups for recordkeeping. C. Evaluation of selection rates. The “bottom line.” D. Adverse impact and the “four-fifths rule.” 4/5 E. Consideration of user's equal employment opportunity posture. § 60-3.5 General standards for validity studies. A. Acceptable types of validity studies. B. Criterion-related, content, and construct validity. C. Guidelines are consistent with professional standards. D. Need for documentation of validity. E. Accuracy and standardization. F. Caution against selection on basis of knowledges, skills, or ability learned in brief orientation period. G. Method of use of selection procedures. H. Cutoff scores. I. Use of selection procedures for higher level jobs. (1) If the majority of those remaining employed do not progress to the higher level job; (2) If there is a reason to doubt that the higher level job will continue to require essentially similar skills during the progression period; or (3) If the selection procedures measure knowledges, skills, or abilities required for advancement which would be expected to develop principally from the training or experience on the job. J. Interim use of selection procedures. K. Review of validity studies for currency. § 60-3.6 Use of selection procedures which have not been validated. A. Use of alternate selection procedures to eliminate adverse impact. B. Where validity studies cannot or need not be performed. (1) Where informal or unscored procedures are used. (2) Where formal and scored procedures are used. § 60-3.7 Use of other validity studies. A. Validity studies not conducted by the user. B. Use of criterion-related validity evidence from other sources. (1) Validity evidence. (2) Job similarity. (3) Fairness evidence. C. Validity evidence from multiunit study. D. Other significant variables. § 60-3.8 Cooperative studies. A. Encouragement of cooperative studies. B. Standards for use of cooperative studies. § 60-3.9 No assumption of validity. A. Unacceptable substitutes for evidence of validity. B. Encouragement of professional supervision. § 60-3.10 Employment agencies and employment services. A. Where selection procedures are devised by agency. B. Where selection procedures are devised elsewhere. § 60-3.11 Disparate treatment. The principles of disparate or unequal treatment must be distinguished from the concepts of validation. A selection procedure—even though validated against job performance in accordance with these guidelines—cannot be imposed upon members of a race, sex, or ethnic group where other employees, applicants, or members have not been subjected to that standard. Disparate treatment occurs where members of a race, sex, or ethnic group have been denied the same employment, promotion, membership, or other employment opportunities as have been available to other employees or applicants. Those employees or applicants who have been denied equal treatment, because of prior discriminatory practices or policies, must at least be afforded the same opportunities as had existed for other employees or applicants during the period of discrimination. Thus, the persons who were in the class of persons discriminated against during the period the user followed the discriminatory practices should be allowed the opportunity to qualify under less stringent selection procedures previously followed, unless the user demonstrates that the increased standards are required by business necessity. This section does not prohibit a user who has not previously followed merit standards from adopting merit standards which are in compliance with these guidelines; nor does it preclude a user who has previously used invalid or unvalidated selection procedures from developing and using procedures which are in accord with these guidelines. § 60-3.12 Retesting of applicants. Users should provide a reasonable opportunity for retesting and reconsideration. Where examinations are administered periodically with public notice, such reasonable opportunity exists, unless persons who have previously been tested are precluded from retesting. The user may however take reasonable steps to preserve the security of its procedures. § 60-3.13 Affirmative action. A. Affirmative action obligations. B. Encouragement of voluntary affirmative action programs. Technical Standards § 60-3.14 Technical standards for validity studies. The following minimum standards, as applicable, should be met in conducting a validity study. Nothing in these guidelines is intended to preclude the development and use of other professionally acceptable techniques with respect to validation of selection procedures. Where it is not technically feasible for a user to conduct a validity study, the user has the obligation otherwise to comply with these guidelines. See sections 6 and 7 of this part. A. Validity studies should be based on review of information about the job. B. Technical standards for criterion-related validity studies Technical feasibility. (2) Analysis of the job. (3) Criterion measures. (4) Representativeness of the sample. Where samples are combined or compared, attention should be given to see that such samples are comparable in terms of the actual job they perform, the length of time on the job where time on the job is likely to affect performance, and other relevant factors likely to affect validity differences; or that these factors are included in the design of the study and their effects identified. (5) Statistical relationships. (6) Operational use of selection procedures. (7) Overstatement of validity findings. (8) Fairness. (a) Unfairness defined. (b) Investigation of fairness. (c) General considerations in fairness investigations. (d) When unfairness is shown. (e) Technical feasibility of fairness studies. (1) An adequate sample of persons in each group available for the study to achieve findings of statistical significance. Guidelines do not require a user to hire or promote persons on the basis of group classifications for the purpose of making it possible to conduct a study of fairness; but the user has the obligation otherwise to comply with these guidelines. (2) The samples for each group should be comparable in terms of the actual job they perform, length of time on the job where time on the job is likely to affect performance, and other relevant factors likely to affect validity differences; or such factors should be included in the design of the study and their effects identified. (f) Continued use of selection procedures when fairness studies not feasible. C. Technical standards for content validity studies Appropriateness of content validity studies. A selection procedure based upon inferences about mental processes cannot be supported solely or primarily on the basis of content validity. Thus, a content strategy is not appropriate for demonstrating the validity of selection procedures which purport to measure traits or constructs, such as intelligence, aptitude, personality, commonsense, judgment, leadership, and spatial ability. Content validity is also not an appropriate strategy when the selection procedure involves knowledges, skills, or abilities which an employee will be expected to learn on the job. (2) Job analysis for content validity. (3) Development of selection procedures. (4) Standards for demonstrating content validity. (5) Reliability. (6) Prior training or experience. (7) Content validity of training success. (8) Operational use. i.e. (9) Ranking based on content validity studies. D. Technical standards for construct validity studies Appropriateness of construct validity studies. (2) Job analysis for construct validity studies. (3) Relationship to the job. (4) Use of construct validity study without new criterion-related evidence Standards for use. (b) Determination of common work behaviors. Documentation of Impact and Validity Evidence § 60-3.15 Documentation of impact and validity evidence. A. Required information. (1) Simplified recordkeeping for users with less than 100 employees. et seq., (a) The number of persons hired, promoted, and terminated for each job, by sex, and where appropriate by race and national origin; (b) The number of applicants for hire and promotion by sex and where appropriate by race and national origin; and (c) The selection procedures utilized (either standardized or not standardized). These records should be maintained for each race or national origin group (see section 4 of this part) constituting more than two percent (2%) of the labor force in the relevant labor area. However, it is not necessary to maintain records by race and/or national origin (see section 4 of this part) if one race or national origin group in the relevant labor area constitutes more than ninety-eight percent (98%) of the labor force in the area. If the user has reason to believe that a selection procedure has an adverse impact, the user should maintain any available evidence of validity for that procedure (see sections 7A and 8). (2) Information on impact Collection of information on impact. (b) When adverse impact has been eliminated in the total selection process. (c) When data insufficient to determine impact. (3) Documentation of validity evidence Types of evidence. (i) Documentation evidence showing criterion-related validity of the selection procedure (see section 15B, of this section). (ii) Documentation evidence showing content validity of the selection procedure (see section 15C, of this section). (iii) Documentation evidence showing construct validity of the selection procedure (see section 15D, of this section). (iv) Documentation evidence from other studies showing validity of the selection procedure in the user's facility (see section 15E, of this section). (v) Documentation evidence showing why a validity study cannot or need not be performed and why continued use of the procedure is consistent with Federal law. (b) Form of report. (c) Completeness. B. Criterion-related validity studies. (1) User(s), location(s), and date(s) of study. (2) Problem and setting. (3) Job analysis or review of job information. (4) Job titles and codes. (5) Criterion measures. (6) Sample description. (7) Description of selection procedures. (8) Techniques and results. (9) Alternative procedures investigated. (10) Uses and applications. (11) Source data. (12) Contact person. (13) Accuracy and completeness. C. Content validity studies. (1) User(s), location(s) and date(s) of study. (2) Problem and setting. (3) Job analysis—Content of the job. (4) Selection procedure and its content. (5) Relationship between the selection procedure and the job. (6) Alternative procedures investigated. (7) Uses and applications. (8) Contact person. (9) Accuracy and completeness. D. Construct validity studies. (1) User(s), location(s), and date(s) of study. (2) Problem and setting. (3) Construct definition. (4) Job analysis. (5) Job titles and codes. (6) Selection procedure. (7) Relationship to job performance. (8) Alternative procedures investigated. (9) Uses and applications. (10) Accuracy and completeness. (11) Source data. (12) Contact person. E. Evidence of validity from other studies. (1) Evidence from criterion-related validity studies Job information. b. Relevance of criteria. c. Other variables. d. Use of the selection procedure. e. Bibliography. (2) Evidence from content validity studies. (3) Evidence from construct validity studies. F. Evidence of validity from cooperative studies. G. Selection for higher level job. H. Interim use of selection procedures. Definitions § 60-3.16 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout these guidelines: A. Ability. B. Adverse impact. C. Compliance with these guidelines. D. Content validity. E. Construct validity. F. Criterion-related validity. G. Employer. H. Employment agency. I. Enforcement action. J. Enforcement agency. K. Job analysis. L. Job description. M. Knowledge. N. Labor organization. O. Observable. P. Race, sex, or ethnic group. Q. Selection procedure. R. Selection rate. S. Should. T. Skill. U. Technical feasibility. V. Unfairness of selection procedure. W. User. X. Validated in accord with these guidelines or properly validated. Y. Work behavior. Appendix to Part 60-3 § 60-3.17 Policy statement on affirmative action (see section 13B). The Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council was established by act of Congress in 1972, and charged with responsibility for developing and implementing agreements and policies designed, among other things, to eliminate conflict and inconsistency among the agencies of the Federal Government responsible for administering Federal law prohibiting discrimination on grounds of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. This statement is issued as an initial response to the requests of a number of State and local officials for clarification of the Government's policies concerning the role of affirmative action in the overall equal employment opportunity program. While the Coordinating Council's adoption of this statement expresses only the views of the signatory agencies concerning this important subject, the principles set forth below should serve as policy guidance for other Federal agencies as well. (1) Equal employment opportunity is the law of the land. In the public sector of our society this means that all persons, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin shall have equal access to positions in the public service limited only by their ability to do the job. There is ample evidence in all sectors of our society that such equal access frequently has been denied to members of certain groups because of their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics. The remedy for such past and present discrimination is twofold. On the one hand, vigorous enforcement of the laws against discrimination is essential. But equally, and perhaps even more important are affirmative, voluntary efforts on the part of public employers to assure that positions in the public service are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified persons, without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics. Without such efforts equal employment opportunity is no more than a wish. The importance of voluntary affirmative action on the part of employers is underscored by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246, and related laws and regulations—all of which emphasize voluntary action to achieve equal employment opportunity. As with most management objectives, a systematic plan based on sound organizational analysis and problem identification is crucial to the accomplishment of affirmative action objectives. For this reason, the Council urges all State and local governments to develop and implement results oriented affirmative action plans which deal with the problems so identified. The following paragraphs are intended to assist State and local governments by illustrating the kinds of analyses and activities which may be appropriate for a public employer's voluntary affirmative action plan. This statement does not address remedies imposed after a finding of unlawful discrimination. (2) Voluntary affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity is construction of any affirmative action plan should be an analysis of the employer's work force to determine whether precentages of sex, race, or ethnic groups in individual job classifications are substantially similar to the precentages of those groups available in the relevant job market who possess the basic job-related qualifications. When substantial disparities are found through such analyses, each element of the overall selection process should be examined to determine which elements operate to exclude persons on the basis of sex, race, or ethnic group. Such elements include, but are not limited to, recruitment, testing, ranking certification, interview, recommendations for selection, hiring, promotion, etc. The examination of each element of the selection process should at a minimum include a determination of its validity in predicting job performance. (3) When an employer has reason to believe that its selection procedures have the exclusionary effect described in paragraph 2 of this section, it should initiate affirmative steps to remedy the situation. Such steps, which in design and execution may be race, color, sex, or ethnic “conscious,” include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The establishment of a long-term goal, and short-range, interim goals and timetables for the specific job classifications, all of which should take into account the availability of basically qualified persons in the relevant job market; (b) A recruitment program designed to attract qualified members of the group in question; (c) A systematic effort to organize work and redesign jobs in ways that provide opportunities for persons lacking “journeyman” level knowledge or skills to enter and, with appropriate training, to progress in a career field; (d) Revamping selection instruments or procedures which have not yet been validated in order to reduce or eliminate exclusionary effects on particular groups in particular job classifications; (e) The initiation of measures designed to assure that members of the affected group who are qualified to perform the job are included within the pool of persons from which the selecting official makes the selection; (f) A systematic effort to provide career advancement training, both classroom and on-the-job, to employees locked into dead end jobs; and (g) The establishment of a system for regularly monitoring the effectiveness of the particular affirmative action program, and procedures for making timely adjustments in this program where effectiveness is not demonstrated. (4) The goal of any affirmative action plan should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. Selection under such plans should be based upon the ability of the applicant(s) to do the work. Such plans should not require the selection of the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor should they require the selection of persons on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Moreover, while the Council believes that this statement should serve to assist State and local employers, as well as Federal agencies, it recognizes that affirmative action cannot be viewed as a standardized program which must be accomplished in the same way at all times in all places. Accordingly, the Council has not attempted to set forth here either the minimum or maximum voluntary steps that employers may take to deal with their respective situations. Rather, the Council recognizes that under applicable authorities, State and local employers have flexibility to formulate affirmative action plans that are best suited to their particular situations. In this manner, the Council believes that affirmative action programs will best serve the goal of equal employment opportunity. Respectfully submitted, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Deputy Attorney General and Chairman of the Equal Employment Coordinating Council. Michael H. Moskow, Under Secretary of Labor. Ethel Bent Walsh, Acting Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman, Civil Service Commission. Arthur E. Flemming, Chairman, Commission on Civil Rights. Because of its equal employment opportunity responsibilities under the State and Local Government Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (the revenue sharing act), the Department of Treasury was invited to participate in the formulation of this policy statement; and it concurs and joins in the adoption of this policy statement. Done this 26th day of August 1976. Richard Albrecht, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury. § 60-3.18 Citations. The official title of these guidelines is “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978)”. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) are intended to establish a uniform Federal position in the area of prohibiting discrimination in employment practices on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These guidelines have been adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Civil Service Commission. The official citation is: “Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295 (August 25, 1978).” The short form citation is: “Section 60-3, U.G.E.S.P. (1978); 43 FR 38295 (August 25, 1978).” When the guidelines are cited in connection with the activities of one of the issuing agencies, a specific citation to the regulations of that agency can be added at the end of the above citation. The specific additional citations are as follows: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 29 CFR Part 1607 Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR Part 60-3 Department of Justice 28 CFR 50.14 Civil Service Commission 5 CFR 300.103(c) Normally when citing these guidelines, the section number immediately preceding the title of the guidelines will be from these guidelines series 1-18. If a section number from the codification for an individual agency is needed it can also be added at the end of the agency citation. For example, section 6A of these guidelines could be cited for EEOC as follows: “Section 6A, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978); 43 FR 38295, (August 25, 1978); 29 CFR Part 1607, section 6A.”