{"id":155,"date":"2019-07-10T16:19:41","date_gmt":"2019-07-10T16:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=155"},"modified":"2024-04-25T01:22:45","modified_gmt":"2024-04-25T01:22:45","slug":"avoiding-discrimination-in-recruiting","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/chapter\/avoiding-discrimination-in-recruiting\/","title":{"raw":"Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting","rendered":"Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Discuss how to avoid discrimination in the recruiting process<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn order to avoid discrimination in the recruiting process, human resource personnel need to review recruiting policies and procedures to ensure compliance with federal discrimination legislation (as discussed in <a href=\"..\/chapter\/why-it-matters-diversity-in-the-workplace\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Module 4: Diversity in the Workplace<\/a>). In particular, employers need to evaluate their advertising and use of employee recruiting, screening, testing and selection techniques to avoid not only intentional discrimination but also practices that have an \u201cadverse impact\u201d on protected groups.\r\n\r\n<img class=\"alignright wp-image-1737\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4056\/2019\/07\/15170745\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission.png\" alt=\"Seal of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/>\r\n\r\nTo the advertising point, the EEOC states that \u201cit is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.\u201d For example, a job ad that specifies \u201cmale\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d or language that suggests age such as \u201crecent college graduate\u201d or \u201cretiree\u201d may violate the law.[footnote]\"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eeoc.gov\/laws\/practices\/index.cfm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Prohibited Employment Policies\/Practices<\/a>.\" U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nWith the emphasis on social and employee-supported recruiting, it\u2019s important to note the potential danger of employee referrals. Specifically, it\u2019s illegal for an employer to engage in recruiting practices that have a discriminatory impact. The example the EEOC cites is an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic workforce, noting that if the result is that most new hires are Hispanic, that practice may violate the law.[footnote]Ibid.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTo quote from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\u2019s (EEOC) Employment Tests &amp; Selection Procedures Fact Sheet: \u201cThe use of tests and other selection procedures can be a very effective means of determining which applicants or employees are most qualified for a particular job. However, use of these tools can violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if an employer intentionally uses them to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age (40 or older). Use of tests and other selection procedures can also violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if they disproportionately exclude people in a particular group by race, sex, or another covered basis, unless the employer can justify the test or procedure under the law.[footnote]\"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eeoc.gov\/policy\/docs\/factemployment_procedures.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Employment Tests and Selection Processes<\/a>.\" The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits the use of employment tests unless they are \u201cdesigned, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.\u201d Additionally, employers are prohibited from using different standards or otherwise altering the results of employment-related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII also applies to employees and, therefore, internal recruiting and selection (for example, transfer or promotion).\r\n\r\nTitle VII prohibits both \u201cdisparate treatment\u201d and \u201cdisparate impact\u201d discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An example of disparate treatment would be testing the reading ability of Hispanic or Latino candidates but not white candidates. To review practices for potential violation of the disparate treatment clause, ask:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Are candidates of a different race, color, religion, sex, or national origin treated differently?<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Is there any evidence of bias, such as discriminatory statements or written comments?<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Can any difference in treatment be justified under the law?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nThese are also the questions that EEOC would consider in evaluating a charge of discrimination.\r\n\r\n\u201cDisparate impact\u201d discrimination involves the use of tests or selection procedures that have the effect of disproportionately excluding persons based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and are not \u201cjob-related and consistent with business necessity.\u201d\r\n\r\nTo review practices for potential violation of the disparate impact clause, ask:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Do required tests disproportionately screen out members of protected groups?<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If there is a disparate impact, can that be justified as necessary for the safe and efficient performance of the job? Note that the skills tested must be specifically related to the particular job.<\/li>\r\n \t<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Is there an alternate means of evaluating job-specific skills that is equally effective in predicting job performance that would not disproportionately exclude protected groups?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<div class=\"textbox examples\">\r\n<h3>Griggs v. Duke Power Co.<\/h3>\r\nConsider the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case decided by the Supreme Court in 1971. At issue in this case: whether Duke Power Company's internal transfer policy, which required both a high school education and passing scores on two separate aptitude tests discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court found that Duke's standardized testing requirement did constitute discrimination, finding that \u201cDuke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Specifically, the court held that \u201cneither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company\u201d but rather, \u201cthe purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.\u201d This case established the legal precedent for disparate impact lawsuits based on racial discrimination.[footnote]\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Griggs v. Duke Power Co.<\/a>\u201d Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica. Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, inc. Accessed September 17, 2019.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nPolicies and procedures should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disabilities.[footnote]Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990)[\/footnote] Review of testing procedures for compliance with the ADA is similar to the points above. Specifically, evaluate employment tests to determine whether they tend to screen out individuals with a specific type of disability or disabilities in general. Any disparate impact must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Further, employers must ensure that tests are selected and administered in a manner that accurately reflects an applicant\u2019s job-related aptitude or skills, not the applicant\u2019s impairment. Finally, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified candidate unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship.\r\n\r\nThe last piece of legislation to factor in is the ADEA, which prohibits both disparate treatment (intentional) and disparate impact discrimination based on age.[footnote]Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Public Law 90-202. 90th Congress. (June 12, 1968)[\/footnote] An example of disparate treatment would be requiring only applicants over the age of 50 to take agility or cognitive tests. Similar to Title VII and the ADA, the ADEA also prohibits employers from using tests or selection procedures that have a discriminatory impact on persons 40 or older, unless the evaluation is based on a reasonable factor other than age.\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>Practice Question<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/827afa31-fff7-4558-89c6-14066ff8f267\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Discuss how to avoid discrimination in the recruiting process<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>In order to avoid discrimination in the recruiting process, human resource personnel need to review recruiting policies and procedures to ensure compliance with federal discrimination legislation (as discussed in <a href=\"..\/chapter\/why-it-matters-diversity-in-the-workplace\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Module 4: Diversity in the Workplace<\/a>). In particular, employers need to evaluate their advertising and use of employee recruiting, screening, testing and selection techniques to avoid not only intentional discrimination but also practices that have an \u201cadverse impact\u201d on protected groups.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright wp-image-1737\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4056\/2019\/07\/15170745\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission.png\" alt=\"Seal of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p>To the advertising point, the EEOC states that \u201cit is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.\u201d For example, a job ad that specifies \u201cmale\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d or language that suggests age such as \u201crecent college graduate\u201d or \u201cretiree\u201d may violate the law.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Prohibited Employment Policies\/Practices.&quot; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-155-1\" href=\"#footnote-155-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>With the emphasis on social and employee-supported recruiting, it\u2019s important to note the potential danger of employee referrals. Specifically, it\u2019s illegal for an employer to engage in recruiting practices that have a discriminatory impact. The example the EEOC cites is an employer&#8217;s reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic workforce, noting that if the result is that most new hires are Hispanic, that practice may violate the law.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Ibid.\" id=\"return-footnote-155-2\" href=\"#footnote-155-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>To quote from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\u2019s (EEOC) Employment Tests &amp; Selection Procedures Fact Sheet: \u201cThe use of tests and other selection procedures can be a very effective means of determining which applicants or employees are most qualified for a particular job. However, use of these tools can violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if an employer intentionally uses them to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age (40 or older). Use of tests and other selection procedures can also violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if they disproportionately exclude people in a particular group by race, sex, or another covered basis, unless the employer can justify the test or procedure under the law.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Employment Tests and Selection Processes.&quot; The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-155-3\" href=\"#footnote-155-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits the use of employment tests unless they are \u201cdesigned, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.\u201d Additionally, employers are prohibited from using different standards or otherwise altering the results of employment-related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII also applies to employees and, therefore, internal recruiting and selection (for example, transfer or promotion).<\/p>\n<p>Title VII prohibits both \u201cdisparate treatment\u201d and \u201cdisparate impact\u201d discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An example of disparate treatment would be testing the reading ability of Hispanic or Latino candidates but not white candidates. To review practices for potential violation of the disparate treatment clause, ask:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Are candidates of a different race, color, religion, sex, or national origin treated differently?<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Is there any evidence of bias, such as discriminatory statements or written comments?<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Can any difference in treatment be justified under the law?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These are also the questions that EEOC would consider in evaluating a charge of discrimination.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cDisparate impact\u201d discrimination involves the use of tests or selection procedures that have the effect of disproportionately excluding persons based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and are not \u201cjob-related and consistent with business necessity.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>To review practices for potential violation of the disparate impact clause, ask:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Do required tests disproportionately screen out members of protected groups?<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If there is a disparate impact, can that be justified as necessary for the safe and efficient performance of the job? Note that the skills tested must be specifically related to the particular job.<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Is there an alternate means of evaluating job-specific skills that is equally effective in predicting job performance that would not disproportionately exclude protected groups?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"textbox examples\">\n<h3>Griggs v. Duke Power Co.<\/h3>\n<p>Consider the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case decided by the Supreme Court in 1971. At issue in this case: whether Duke Power Company&#8217;s internal transfer policy, which required both a high school education and passing scores on two separate aptitude tests discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court found that Duke&#8217;s standardized testing requirement did constitute discrimination, finding that \u201cDuke&#8217;s standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Specifically, the court held that \u201cneither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee&#8217;s ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company\u201d but rather, \u201cthe purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke&#8217;s long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.\u201d This case established the legal precedent for disparate impact lawsuits based on racial discrimination.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cGriggs v. Duke Power Co.\u201d Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica. Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, inc. Accessed September 17, 2019.\" id=\"return-footnote-155-4\" href=\"#footnote-155-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Policies and procedures should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disabilities.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990)\" id=\"return-footnote-155-5\" href=\"#footnote-155-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a> Review of testing procedures for compliance with the ADA is similar to the points above. Specifically, evaluate employment tests to determine whether they tend to screen out individuals with a specific type of disability or disabilities in general. Any disparate impact must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Further, employers must ensure that tests are selected and administered in a manner that accurately reflects an applicant\u2019s job-related aptitude or skills, not the applicant\u2019s impairment. Finally, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified candidate unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship.<\/p>\n<p>The last piece of legislation to factor in is the ADEA, which prohibits both disparate treatment (intentional) and disparate impact discrimination based on age.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Public Law 90-202. 90th Congress. (June 12, 1968)\" id=\"return-footnote-155-6\" href=\"#footnote-155-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a> An example of disparate treatment would be requiring only applicants over the age of 50 to take agility or cognitive tests. Similar to Title VII and the ADA, the ADEA also prohibits employers from using tests or selection procedures that have a discriminatory impact on persons 40 or older, unless the evaluation is based on a reasonable factor other than age.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>Practice Question<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_827afa31-fff7-4558-89c6-14066ff8f267\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/827afa31-fff7-4558-89c6-14066ff8f267?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_827afa31-fff7-4558-89c6-14066ff8f267\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-155\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Original<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Nina Burokas. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">Public domain content<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Seal of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission.svg\">https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission.svg<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/about\/pdm\">Public Domain: No Known Copyright<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-155-1\">\"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eeoc.gov\/laws\/practices\/index.cfm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Prohibited Employment Policies\/Practices<\/a>.\" U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-155-2\">Ibid. <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-155-3\">\"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eeoc.gov\/policy\/docs\/factemployment_procedures.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Employment Tests and Selection Processes<\/a>.\" The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accessed July 26, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-155-4\">\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Griggs v. Duke Power Co.<\/a>\u201d Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica. Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, inc. Accessed September 17, 2019. <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-155-5\">Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990) <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-155-6\">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Public Law 90-202. 90th Congress. (June 12, 1968) <a href=\"#return-footnote-155-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":17,"menu_order":10,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting\",\"author\":\"Nina Burokas\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"pd\",\"description\":\"Seal of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission.svg\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"pd\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"d045e212-8e79-4724-bf83-dbee7975b74d, 8d8bd703-5202-4458-bd8a-cf318c6ae479","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-155","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":145,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/155\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3345,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/155\/revisions\/3345"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/145"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/155\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=155"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=155"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-humanresourcesmgmt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}