Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co., 2006

Add this course to my shopping cart

Reference Title: Larry Bridges and Joyce Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co., Civil Action No. 04-60975 (S.D. MS. Mar. 2, 2006)
Author: U.S. District Court
Publication Type: Legal (Court Decision)
Publication Date: 2006
Course Level: Advanced
Credits: 1
Price: $10.00
About This Course: In this U.S. District Court decision, the court reverses and renders judgment in favor of the defendant, upholding the passing score. The decision discusses which party should propose an alternative selection standard with less disparate impact, and summarizes the evidence supporting the cut score.
  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 the court opinion regarding Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co., 2006, 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 1 CE credit. 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 court opinion needed for this course is available here, Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (U.S. District Court, 03/02/2006), at no cost.

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. Identify basic information about the court 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 $10, 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 court opinion needed for this course is available here, Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (U.S. District Court, 03/02/2006), at no cost.

2.e Author Credentials (top)

This is a memorandum opinion and order released by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, regarding Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (03/02/06).

2.f Number of CE Credits Offered (top)

Participants who complete this course by taking and passing the multiple-choice test will receive 1 CE credit.

2.g Location and Format (top)

This activity requires independent home-based study of a court opinion (Bridges and Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co.) Following completion of the reading material, participants complete an Internet-based multiple-choice post-test on its content.

2.h Detailed Description of Program Material (top)

Publication citation:

Larry Bridges & Joyce Riley v. Mississippi Power and Light Co.,Civil Action No. 04-60975 (S.D. MS. Mar. 2, 2006)

Two African-American employees failed a paper and pencil employment test. They challenged the recently raised cutoff score on that test. A Federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. District Court reversed the lower court, ruling the company's decision to raise the cutoff score was consistent with business necessity.

3. Conflict of Interest Statement (top)

APR Testing Services (APR) has no known conflict of interest with respect to this CE program. APR has not received any commercial support for this CE program.