PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 1997, 50 EXPLAINING U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS DECISIONS INVOLVING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: ACCURACY, FAIRNESS, AND VALIDATION JON M. WERNER, MARK C. BOLINO Department of Management University of South Carolina Accuracy and due process perspectives were used to extend policy- capturing research concerning employment discrimination case law. TWo-hundred ninety-five usable U.S. Circuit Court decisions concern- ing performance appraisal were located from 1980-1995. In both chi- square and multivariate LOGIT analyses, decisions were explained by: use of job analysis, provision of written instructions, employee review of results, and agreement among raters. Contrary to hypotheses, ap- praisal frequency and type (traits vs. behaviors or results) were unre- lated to judicial decision. Rater training approached significance in chi-square analysis. Of other variables checked (e.g., type of discrim- ination claim, statutory basis, class action status, year of decision, cir- cuit court, type of organization, purpose of appraisal, evaluator race and sex), only circuit court approached significance. We conclude that issues relevant to fairness and due process were most salient to Judicial decisions; issues pertaining to accuracy were important, yet validation was virtually ignored in this sample of cases. Today there is no dispute that performance appraisal practices are subject to employment legislation such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Further, many researchers and practitioners view perfor- mance appraisal as an employment "test" covered by the Uniform Guide- lines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978). The Guidelines were adopted in 1978 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other regulatory agencies, and emphasize the need for employers to validate all employment criteria, both "objective" and "subjective," where adverse impact has been found. This is the official position of We would like to thank John HoUenbeck, Sandra Gleason, Hoyt Wheeler, Brian Klaas, Martin Malin, John Grego, Samantha Wolf, Tbm Ruprecht, Bob Strack, Scott Keyes, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable assistance at various stages of this research. An earlier effort at similar research was presented at the National Academy of Management Convention in San Francisco, August, 1990. Correspondence and requests for reprints, or a list of Courts of Appeals cases used in this analysis, may be obtained from Jon M. Werner at the Department of Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 or e-mail wernerj@darla.badm.sc.edu. COPYRIGHT © 1997 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC 1