The point of Griggs vs Duke Power is that a work sample test would probably need to be "reasonably related" to the job at issue, if it has a disparate impact on minorities (meaning minorities pass at a lower rate). I have no idea how one proves in court that a test is "reasonably related", because I'm not a lawyer :-)
Yeah, I'm familiar with it; my point is that the ad-hoc procedures companies use in place of work-sample testing are much more perilous. I've been a witness to more than one legal action that resulted from them.
