L03 Case Study Discussion: Exhibits 9-10

Below are exhibits 9-10 that were used at the hearing.

Exhibit 9

When the parameter SCAM suggests is used as the basis for Cluster 2, AJ Remington’s methodology would result in the following:

Exhibit 9

Category	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian
Radiologists	20/19 +1	1/1	2/3 -1	6/5 +1
Psychiatrists	10/6 +4	1/1	1/2 -1	4/3 +1
Surgeons	28/27 +1	1/1	1/1	3/3
Dentists	8/7 +1	1/0 +1	2/1 +1	2/2
Internists	17/17	1/1	3/3	6/2 +4

 

Exhibit 10

SCAM argues that use of the correct demographic data base results in an indication that variations are within a range that is normal when the recruiting area, Nationwide and based on the pool of qualified applicants, is used rather than AJ Remington’s application of population data for the Metroplex for Cluster 2:

Exhibit 10

Location	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian
Nationwide	+7	+1	-1	+6
Metroplex	+19	-23	-6	+18

 

Summary

The difference between CAD’s and SCAM’s positions is based on statistical interpretations and which values should be applied.

CAD holds that the statistical variations establish a need for an affirmative action plan based on a lengthy history of discriminatory recruiting and hiring practices.

SCAM disagrees. It holds that the statistics developed by AJ Remington do not reflect the demographics of reasonable recruiting areas or the percentages of people of any race with the requisite skills for the positions under review. It also notes that even the minor variances shown when its methods are applied are attributable to rounding when figures were above .05 for a position. If that is considered, it emphasizes that Blacks were even more overutilized in the categories of medical specialists than its calculations establish.

Lastly, SCAM argues that AJ Remington’s order does not comply with guidelines concerning AAPs in that there must be a reasonable basis for implementation and realistic expectations as to attainment of goals. SCAM urges that AJ Remington’s decision bears no relationship to the realities of its circumstance. CAD is fully supportive of AJ Remington’s method of development and reliance on relevant statistics.

In accordance with CAD Administrative Regulation #22, the matter is forwarded for a de novo review and consideration by the Supreme Court for HR 501 at Penn State University. It is so ordered.

BY: AYN RANDALL for the Commission