Employment IQ tests are the best way to determine a person's ability to perform a task. This is reflected in the fact that "it is illegal to induct someone into the United States armed forces if they have an IQ below 83." This was created from the fact that people with an IQ below 83 are not capable of performing a task or being trained for a job in the armed forces. This same law applies to all federal government jobs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayEven though it is illegal to test a person's IQ to determine employment opportunities, the United States government uses the Civil Service Test and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to test IQ. Then, to determine if the person is worth hiring; however, the private sector, if it has 15 or more employees, cannot legally do so. Because they then fall under the laws of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This, therefore, requires hiring employees based on race, gender and sexual orientation. The argument made in the media and in activist groups is that IQ tests are biased. Relying on the belief that the outcome is not the same is discriminatory. Some of the EEOC court case examples showing this belief in action where the EEOC VS. Dial Corporation.Dial Corp. had a problem with employee injuries and came up with a solution of taking a physical ability test for employment. Dial Corp. would require the new employee to hire, lift and carry a 25-pound box and a 50-pound box through the building. If the person was capable of doing it, then they would hire them. If they could not complete the task, they would be placed in other jobs within the company or not be hired. The EEOC, in the lawsuit, argued that the test was “biased against women.” As a result, half of the women who applied and took the test were not hired compared to the old hiring process. According to Dial Corp., the test added to the hiring process had the desired result: fewer employees were injured, improving workplace safety and costs related to injured employees. I personally believe that Dial Corp. had every right to take the test and it was a fair test. . However, they lost the case because they did not apply lower standards to female applicants and applied the test equally, ignoring hiring outcomes regarding race and gender. Now the question is, was the test really biased against women or did it contain some unwanted truth? The EEOC, a commission with only one job, to detect inequality in employment opportunities and outcomes, says the test was biased. Another example is that of the EEOC against the American automobile industry. An EEOC case determined that the Apprenticeship Training Selection System (ATSS) discriminated against African Americans. This was determined by rule 4/5 of the Uniform Employee Selection Guidelines (UGES). ATSS was determined by the EEOC to have racial bias because fewer African American applicants were being hired. The ATSS was a cognitive test, much like the SSAT used for college and the ASVAB for the military. It tested the person's cognitive abilities; however, companies did not assign additional points to scores based on race, gender, and disability. Keep in mind: this is just one.