Smith v Boston (2015)

Add this course to my shopping cart

Reference Title: Smith v Boston (2015)
Author: U.S. District Court
Publication Type: Legal (Court Decision)
Publication Date: 2015
Course Level: Advanced
Credits: 3
Price: $30.00
About This Course: In this US District Court decision, the court discusses adverse impact, test validity, and test reliability in finding that a police promotional test violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  1. Overview of this CE Home-Study Program
  2. Information About the Course
    1. Educational Objectives
    2. Target Audience
    3. Schedule
    4. Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy
    5. Author Credentials
    6. Number of CE Credits Offered
    7. Location and Format
    8. Detailed Description of Program Material
  3. Conflict of Interest Statement

1. Overview of this CE program (top)

This home study course entails the independent study of Smith v Boston (2015), followed by the completion of a multiple-choice test on-line. Participants who receive a passing grade of 75% or higher on the test will receive 2 CE credits. Failing participants may retake the test as often as they wish at no additional charge, and receive CE credit when they do pass.

A copy of the reading for this course is available for free download here Smith v City of Boston (2015).

More detailed information on the content of this article is given in section 2h below.

APR Testing Services is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. APR Testing Services maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

2.a Educational Objectives (top)

Upon completion of this home study program, the participant will be able to:

  1. Explain basic information about the case, including the parties and the alleged violation of law.
  2. Identify facts of the case, including what test was involved and how it was used.
  3. Describe the evidence and arguments put forth by the parties.
  4. Summarize the decision of the court and the reasons given for the decision.

2.b Target Audience (top)

This CE program is intended for psychologists who hold a doctoral degree. The course may be taken by other interested professionals (e.g.,senior human resource executives and consultants; upper-level managers).

2.c Schedule (top)

Access to program registration and post-test is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2.d Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy (top)

The fee for this home-study program is $30, which is $10 per CE credit. The fee is fully refundable for 60 days or until the post-test is taken, whichever comes first.

A copy of the reading for this course is available for free download at the Smith v City of Boston (2015).

2.e Author Credentials (top)

This is a memorandum opinion and order released by the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts regarding Smith v. City of Boston (2015).

2.f Number of CE Credits Offered (top)

Participants who complete this course by taking and passing the multiple-choice test will receive 3 CE credits.

2.g Location and Format (top)

This activity requires independent home-based study of Smith v Boston (2015). Following completion of the reading material, participants complete an Internet-based multiple-choice post-test on the content of the material.

2.h Detailed Description of Program Material (top)

Publication citation:

Smith v Boston, 12-10291-WGY (2015).

From the reading:

In this action, ten black police sergeants (the "Plaintiffs") employed by the Boston Police Department (the "Department") brought suit against the City of Boston ("Boston" or the "City") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the multiple-choice examinations the Department administered in 2005 and 2008 to select which sergeants to promote to the rank of lieutenant had a racially disparate impact on minority candidates and were insufficiently job-related to pass muster under Title VII.1 The Plaintiffs also asserted a pendent claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B ("Chapter 151B").2 The City disputes that the exams had a disparate impact on minority candidates and claims that, even if they did, the exams were sufficiently job-related to survive a Title VII challenge.

3. Conflict of Interest Statement (top)

APR Testing Services (APR) is owned by Joel Wiesen Ph.D., who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in this case. APR has not received any commercial support for this CE program.