PrepSolution
PHRHigh-YieldWorkforce Planning 14%
this calculation appears on almost every PHR exam

Adverse Impact and the 4/5ths Rule

80%

The Threshold

Four-Fifths Rule floor

1978

Established

EEOC Uniform Guidelines

All

HR Decisions

Hire, promote, train, layoff

two bars · one fairness floor

The 4/5ths Bar Chart

Plot each group's selection rate as a bar. Draw the 80% fairness floor across them. Any group falling below the floor relative to the leader triggers adverse impact.

0%25%50%75%100%selection rate50%higher group100 hires / 200 applicantsfairness floor · 80% of higher rate30%lower group30 hires / 100 applicantsbelow floor→ adverse impact30% ÷ 50% = 60% · BELOW 80% · adverse impact indicatedselection rates · fairness floor at 80% of higher rate

how to read this

  • › The green bar is the higher-passing group. Its rate is the reference.
  • › The dashed yellow lineis the 4/5ths floor — 80% of the higher group's rate.
  • › Any other group whose bar falls below that line triggers adverse-impact analysis. The employer then must defend the practice as job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • › Below the floor is a screen, not a verdict. It opens the defense, not the case.

memorize the steps · reuse on the exam

The Calculation, Step by Step

Same numbers, three steps. The exam will reuse this exact flow with different inputs.

step 1

Selection rate per group

Higher: 100/200 = 50%

Lower: 30/100 = 30%

step 2

Ratio (lower ÷ higher)

30% ÷ 50% = 60%

step 3

Compare to 80%

60% < 80% → adverse impact

The four-fifths rule screens for adverse impact. Below 80% triggers a defense — not automatic liability.

Exam Traps

Failing 4/5ths is not automatic liability

It triggers a defense. The employer must show the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The exam tests this nuance.

Adverse impact applies to ALL HR decisions

Not just hiring. Promotions, training selections, layoffs, compensation increases — all subject to disparate impact analysis.

Disparate Impact ≠ Disparate Treatment

Impact = facially neutral practice with unequal results. Treatment = intentional discrimination against an individual. Different evidence, different defenses.

The 4/5 rule is a guideline, not a statute

Statistical significance tests can also show adverse impact even when 4/5 is technically met. Courts use both.

Impact vs Treatment

Adverse impact = the system is unfair. Disparate treatment = I chose to be unfair. Wrong category, wrong answer.

4/5 is a screen

Below 80% triggers a defense, not automatic liability. The employer gets to justify business necessity.

1
Same rule, same kids

The teacher says anyone who can carry this tray across the room without dropping cupcakes runs a booth. The rule applies equally.

2
Check who actually passes

10 of 20 taller kids pass (50%). Only 2 of 20 shorter kids pass (10%). The tray was not designed to be unfair, but the outcome is wildly unequal.

3
The principal does the 80% check

Lower group must pass at least 80% of the rate of the top group. 10% is only 20% of 50%. Way below 80. Adverse impact indicated.

4
The teacher must defend the test

If the tray is genuinely required for booth success, defense holds. If the test is arbitrary, the practice has to change.

4/5 = 80% = the Fairness Floor. Below it, defend or change the practice.
reading is not enough, you gotta practice

Ready to test your PHR knowledge?

1,700+ practice questions written by certified professionals.

Start Practicing PHR
Reviewed by Sarah L., PrepSolution Content Editor, HR
Sources verified against HRCI 2026 standards
Updated May 2026