LAUSR

[...]those judges will interpret job descriptions that are often written by employers to serve employees who might be doing a variety of things listed that are not always a part of every employees’ role in that defined job’s requirements.1 Job content is much more important today than a job’s listed requirements, as content addresses what you actually do rather than what you could be called to do.2 Additionally, wage discrimination lawsuits are typically far less likely to be successful than the average tort claim.3 Roughly 50% of tort cases are successful, whereas cases filed with the EEOC that have illustrated a finding of wage discrimination have hovered only between 4.5% and 7.5% percent over the past 10 years, despite a steady pace of filed cases.4 The majority of these “successful” cases will result in consent decrees, or legal settlements that typically are not published legal precedent that can be relied upon for future filings. (2021) also suggest that organizations can use existing inventories such as the Position Analysis Questionnaire, the Job Element Inventory, and O*NET GWAs for use in determining generalized work activities, as they may be more cost effective than the in-house development of tasks, these tools also rely on subject-matter-expert ratings. [...]the potential for bias and use of stereotypical heuristics when making decisions are not the only issues with respect to the use of job analysis in the context of job classification. (2021) suggest that although job duties may remain the same, the nature of how the job is done will vary (e.g., task interdependence, task frequency, communication, etc.) perhaps more frequently than with other nonremote work. [...]although job duties appear equivalent, the nature of the job has become more dynamic making job analysis a less amenable choice. [...]we call for a rethinking of the focal article contribution in this area relative to such work arrangements.