Workplace assessments, when well-designed and appropriately implemented, can improve the prediction of job performance, enhance hiring quality, and support strategic talent decisions. Yet their misuse or even well-intentioned use without proper controls can expose organizations to significant legal liability, reputational harm, and ethical criticism. Ashe and Lundquist (2010) emphasized that U.S. law holds employers accountable for the consequences of their selection systems, particularly when neutral tools cause disproportionate exclusion of individuals from protected classes. Yusko et al. (2017) reinforced that fairness, validity, and job-relatedness are not optional; they are core requirements embedded in professional standards and legal expectations. Ashe and Lundquist (2010) outlined a three-tiered order of proof used by courts to evaluate discrimination claims: (1) a plaintiff must show statistical evidence of disparate impact; (2) the employer must prove that the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity; and (3) the plaintiff may then show that an alternative practice exists with equal validity but less adverse impact. Yusko et al. (2017) stressed that compliance is not just about avoiding litigation; it is about designing assessment systems that are valid, reliable, fair, and transparent