Name That Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

The Chancellor’s Office’s June 2016 Legal Opinion emphasizes districts' obligation to collect, analyze and utilize longitudinal data regarding hiring of monitored groups. 228 It also discusses districts' continued obligation under the revised regulations to conduct statistical analyses regarding adverse impact on significantly underrepresented groups, and where adverse impact is identified, to determine whether or not it is based on job-related factors. The Opinion provides two measures that districts should use to analyze whether or not hiring practices have an adverse impact on monitored groups: 1) whether actual representation among employees is less than 80% of "projected representation"; and 2) whether the selection rate for a monitored group is less than 4/5ths (or 80%) of the selection rate for the group with the highest rate (“80 Percent Rule”). The Opinion also advises that data should be collected at each stage of the hiring process. In an “80 Percent Rule” analysis, the District compares the percentage of individuals from a monitored group in a job category with the District’s projected representation for the same group. Title 5 does not define “projected representation” for purposes of the 80 Percent Rule – it is a local decision. Districts have the discretion and authority to establish projected representation based on one or more factors, including student demographics at the college or district, community demographics in the district’s service area, labor market availability for the job category or previous demographics of job applicants. As discussed above, the revised regulations were adopted in part because the State Chancellor's Office determined that it is currently impossible to develop availability data needed to determine projected representations. Unless and until the State Chancellor is able to produce reliable availability data, it is not clear that districts are required to analyze current work force against "projected representations." Before attempting to develop local data of projected representation, districts should consult with legal counsel. In applying any adverse impact analysis, districts should keep in mind that reliable data depends on having sufficient numbers to be statistically reliable. Districts should consult with legal counsel before concluding that the data suggests the existence of an adverse impact. The revised regulations eliminated the pool certification process due to concerns that implementing remedies to correct underrepresentation after a search was underway could run afoul of Proposition 209. Districts should consult with legal counsel in designing the remedial steps they will take where they identify an adverse impact. Finally, Component 15 singled out disabled individuals for EEO procedures different from other protected groups. The revised regulations require the same EEO, recruitment, and hiring procedures for all groups. i. “Old” Component 12: Methods to Address Any Underrepresentation We use the numbering of the Model Plan components for clarity. (Title 5 retained but revised but revised some components.) 229 It simply requires the EEO Plan to include methods for addressing any underrepresentation identified pursuant to the required data analysis. 230 In designing EEO Plans and hiring practices in this area, we recommend consulting with legal counsel. In particular, districts should be cautious in the following areas:

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 76