Legal context for using personality assessments
in tenant screening.
Applicable laws
To be legal, a screening procedure must not discriminate on the basis of a protected ground (e.g., race, sex, disability). Each country has laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of protected grounds. Specific tenant acts in provinces, states, and countries reflect these broader laws.
See a list of applicable nation-wide legislation- Canada: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s 15. Canadian Human Rights Act 1977.
- United States: United States Constitution: 14th Amendment. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and codified in the United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 (Civil Rights). Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII, as amended and codified in the United States Code Title 42 Chapter 45 (Fair Housing Act).
- United Kingdom: Human Rights Act 1998. Race Relations Act 1976.
- European Union: Treaty on Establishing the European Community (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, 1999). Racial Equality Directive. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) Article 21. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (article 14, Protocol 12).
How personality assessments fit with laws
Personality assessments should actually help landlords comply with laws because they help avoid disadvantaging people on the basis of protected grounds.
Evidence comparing adverse impact of various screening toolsPersonality assessments have been thoroughly studied for decades. The most extensive review to date (by Foldes, Duehr, & Ones, 2008) analyzed over 700 studies on the topic. The conclusion was that "personality scales yielded negligible differences and should not cause adverse impact in selection" (p. 579).
In contrast, many of the most popular tools currently used to screen tenants do produce adverse impact:
- Credit: Minorities are more likely to have low credit ratings (Federal Trade Commission 2007; Gallagher 2006)
- Criminal record: According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 28% of Black males will serve time in a federal prison. Compare that to 16% of Hispanic males, and only 4% of White males (Bonczar & Beck, 1997)
- Interviews: Conventional interviews produce small adverse impact. Structuring interviews cam reduce this impact by 30% (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998).
References
Bonczar, T. P. & Beck, A. J. (1997). Lifetime likelihood of going to state or federal prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ-160092. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal Trade Commission (2007). Credit-based insurance scores: Impacts on consumers of automobile insurance. Retrieved from www.ftc.gov/os/2007/07/ P044804FACTA_Report_Credit-Based_Insurance_Scores.pdf., June 24, 2009.
Foldes, H. J., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in personality - Meta-analyses comparing five U.S. racial groups. Personnel Psychology, 61, 579-616.
Gallagher, K. (2006). Rethinking the Fair Credit Reporting Act: when requesting credit reports for “employment purposes” goes too far. Iowa Law Review, 91, 1593.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179-189.
Of course, please research the laws in your local area before adding any tool to your screening process. We are not aware of any laws in any country or region prohibiting the use of personality assessments in tenant screening.