> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.workersrights.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # EEOC plans to drop guidelines that police unfair hiring tests by January - URL: https://www.workersrights.news/eeoc-scraps-hiring-test-guidelines-four-fifths-rule/ - Published: 2026-10-23T14:40:15.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T14:40:15.000Z - Description: Title VII still bans discriminatory screens, but workers lose the federal yardstick for proving it. - Author: WorkersRights.News Team - Tags: Legal News, Politics The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is close to scrapping the 1978 federal rulebook that tells employers how to check whether a hiring test unfairly screens out people by race, sex or ethnicity. On Oct. 16, the EEOC sent a final rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review, according to [Bloomberg Law](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/eeoc-plan-to-scrap-uniform-guidelines-under-white-house-review?ref=workersrights.news) and the management-side law firm [Ogletree Deakins](https://natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-sends-oira-final-rule-rescinding-uniform-guidelines-employee-selection?ref=workersrights.news). The rule (RIN 3046-AB43) would remove the "interpretive rulemaking portions" of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and their appendix, from the Code of Federal Regulations, according to the [EEOC's own regulatory agenda entry](https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=3046-AB43&ref=workersrights.news). The agenda projects final action in November and an effective date in January 2027\. The rule's text is not yet public. ## The 80 percent tripwire The EEOC, the Labor Department, the Justice Department and the Civil Service Commission [jointly adopted](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.1?ref=workersrights.news) the guidelines in 1978\. Their best-known piece is the "four-fifths rule." Under [29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.4?ref=workersrights.news), when any race, sex or ethnic group passes a screen at "less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent)" of the rate of the group that does best, federal enforcers will "generally" treat that as "evidence of adverse impact." If 50 percent of white applicants pass a test but only 30 percent of Black applicants do, that 60 percent ratio is a red flag, and the employer must show the test actually measures ability to do the job. Ogletree says the rescinded parts likely include that guidance on spotting adverse impact and validating tests. The guidelines grew out of [*Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/401/424?ref=workersrights.news) (1971), where the Supreme Court struck down aptitude tests and a diploma requirement that kept Black workers out of better jobs. Title VII, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." Congress wrote that principle, called disparate impact, into [Title VII itself](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2?ref=workersrights.news) in 1991. ## Part of a wider campaign The move follows President Trump's April 23, 2025 executive order, ["Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,"](https://whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy?ref=workersrights.news) which declared a policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts" and told agencies to "deprioritize enforcement" of laws that include it, naming Title VII. The EEOC, led by Chair Andrea Lucas, has offered little public rationale; its agenda entry notes only that the guidelines predate the 1991 amendments. The [Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology](https://www.siop.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/PolicyBriefUniformSelectionStatement%5F121525.pdf?ref=workersrights.news), whose members design hiring tests, said in December 2025 that it "strongly opposes the rescission of the Uniform Guidelines." Even Ogletree, which represents employers, says companies must still prove a screen is job-related: "Rescinding the UGESP removes the roadmap many employers have relied on to meet that burden, not the burden itself." A separate, not-yet-proposed rule (RIN 3046-AB45) would also end the guidelines' recordkeeping, including applicant data by race and sex. ## Why this matters now Automated résumé filters and AI assessments now decide who gets seen by a human. The four-fifths rule is one of the simplest ways to catch a tool that quietly rejects women or applicants of color at higher rates. Without the guidance and the data, those patterns get harder to spot. The law has not changed. Title VII still bans hiring practices that cause a disparate impact unless the employer proves they are "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." Workers can still sue, and states are stepping in: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois have written disparate impact into their own laws or rules, [according to DCI Consulting](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/more-states-uphold-disparate-impact-7553060/?ref=workersrights.news). Like the [Labor Department's enforcement pullback](https://www.workersrights.news/labor-department-backs-off-enforcement-union-workplaces/), this shifts the work of policing employers onto workers. We condemn the EEOC's retreat from a tool that has helped expose unfair hiring screens for nearly half a century. ## If a hiring screen shut you out Write down the job, the date, any test or online assessment you took, and any rejection message. You generally have [180 days to file an EEOC charge](https://www.eeoc.gov/time-limits-filing-charge?ref=workersrights.news), or 300 days if your state has its own agency enforcing a similar law. You can also file with your state's civil rights agency, which may be more willing than Washington to pursue these cases, or ask an employment lawyer whether you have a claim. If you already have a job and worry about speaking up, read our explainer on [the myth of at-will employment](https://www.workersrights.news/myth-of-at-will-employment/). ### Sources - [EEOC Sends OIRA Final Rule Rescinding Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures](https://natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-sends-oira-final-rule-rescinding-uniform-guidelines-employee-selection?ref=workersrights.news) — National Law Review (Ogletree Deakins) - [EEOC Plan to Scrap Uniform Guidelines Under White House Review](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/eeoc-plan-to-scrap-uniform-guidelines-under-white-house-review?ref=workersrights.news) — Bloomberg Law - [EEOC Poised To Withdraw Disparate Impact Guidance](https://www.law360.com/articles/2539492/eeoc-poised-to-withdraw-disparate-impact-guidance?ref=workersrights.news) — Law360 - [Rescission of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (RIN 3046-AB43)](https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=3046-AB43&ref=workersrights.news) — Reginfo.gov / OIRA - [29 C.F.R. § 1607.1, Statement of purpose](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.1?ref=workersrights.news) — Cornell Legal Information Institute - [29 C.F.R. § 1607.4, Information on impact](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.4?ref=workersrights.news) — Cornell Legal Information Institute - [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, Unlawful employment practices](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2?ref=workersrights.news) — Cornell Legal Information Institute - [Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/401/424?ref=workersrights.news) — Cornell Legal Information Institute - [Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (Executive Order 14281)](https://whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy?ref=workersrights.news) — The White House - [Policy Brief: Uniform Guidelines Statement](https://www.siop.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/PolicyBriefUniformSelectionStatement%5F121525.pdf?ref=workersrights.news) — Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - [More States Uphold Disparate Impact Theory Despite Federal Opposition](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/more-states-uphold-disparate-impact-7553060/?ref=workersrights.news) — JD Supra (DCI Consulting) - [Time Limits for Filing a Charge](https://www.eeoc.gov/time-limits-filing-charge?ref=workersrights.news) — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission