Are personality tests legal in hiring? The laws on pre-employment testing

Personality tests are legal in US hiring as long as they stay inside four federal limits. A test designed to detect a mental disorder counts as a medical examination and cannot be given before a job offer (the ADA, as applied in Karraker v. Rent-A-Center). Lie detectors are banned for most private employers, though written honesty tests are not, except in Massachusetts, which bans those too. Any test that screens out one race, sex or ethnic group at a higher rate must be job-related and should be validated. And candidates with disabilities must get accommodations that let the test measure what it claims to. These rules are current as of October 2026.

This page covers the law on tests themselves. For the adverse-impact arithmetic see the four-fifths rule; for physical and medical exams after an offer see pre-employment medical exams under the ADA; for the kinds of assessment available, see types of pre-employment assessments.

Which tests are legal, at a glance

When is a personality test a medical exam under the ADA?

Before a conditional offer, an employer "shall not conduct a medical examination" of a job applicant (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A)). The EEOC's 1995 enforcement guidance, which it says remains in effect "until rescinded or superseded," draws the line for psychological tests: they "are medical if they provide evidence that would lead to identifying a mental disorder or impairment," such as conditions listed in the DSM. On the other hand, "if a test is designed and used to measure only things such as honesty, tastes, and habits, it is not medical" (EEOC guidance).

The leading case is Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (7th Cir., June 14, 2005). Rent-A-Center required employees seeking promotion to take a nine-part test battery that included the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The company said it used the MMPI only to measure personality traits and scored it with a vocational protocol, not a clinical one. The court held it was still a medical exam: "Because it is designed, at least in part, to reveal mental illness and has the effect of hurting the employment prospects of one with a mental disability, we think the MMPI is best categorized as a medical examination," regardless of the scoring method. The court reversed and directed summary judgment for the employees on that claim.

What that means when you choose a test:

• Ask the vendor what the instrument was originally designed and normed for. A tool built for clinical diagnosis stays a medical exam even if you only read the "work" scales.
• Look for scales or items about depression, anxiety, paranoia or other conditions, and for interpretation by a clinician.
• Keep any test that could reveal a mental impairment until after a conditional offer, and then follow the post-offer rules for confidentiality and equal treatment.

Are honesty and integrity tests legal?

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act makes it unlawful for most private employers "to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test," or to use the results (29 U.S.C. 2002). A lie detector includes "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device" used to give an opinion on honesty (29 U.S.C. 2001(3)). Narrow exemptions cover government employers, some security services firms and drug manufacturers and distributors (29 U.S.C. 2006). The Department of Labor can assess a civil penalty of up to $26,262 per violation as of October 2026 (29 CFR 801.42).

Paper-and-pencil honesty tests are outside the federal ban. The DOL's regulation says the term lie detector does not include "written or oral tests commonly referred to as 'honesty' or 'paper and pencil' tests, machine-scored or otherwise; and graphology tests" (29 CFR 801.2(d)(2)).

Massachusetts bans written honesty tests

Massachusetts defines a lie detector test as "any test utilizing a polygraph or any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination" used to detect deception, verify truthfulness or give "a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual," and makes it unlawful to subject an applicant or employee to one (M.G.L. c.149 s.19B). Three details matter for multistate employers:

• Giving the test outside Massachusetts "for employment within the commonwealth" is not a defense.
• Every application for employment in Massachusetts must carry this notice in legible print: "It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability."
• Applicants can sue within three years for treble damages for lost wages and benefits, with a minimum of $500 per violation, plus fees; fines and, for repeat violations, up to 90 days in jail also apply.

If your assessment platform includes an "integrity" or "counterproductive work behavior" module, switch it off for Massachusetts roles and check the application form for the notice.

What if a test screens out more of one group?

Title VII allows employers "to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate" (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h)). A test that causes a disparate impact is unlawful unless the employer shows it is "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (2000e-2(k)).

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, still in the Code of Federal Regulations as of October 2026, set the standard the EEOC applies: a selection procedure with adverse impact "will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated" (29 CFR 1607.3(A)). "Selection procedure" covers far more than tests: the definition runs "from traditional paper and pencil tests" through "informal or casual interviews and unscored application forms" (29 CFR 1607.16(Q)).

Two further rules catch people out:

• No group-based norms. It is unlawful "to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (2000e-2(l)). Ask any vendor whether its reports use separate norms by group.
• Federal enforcement has changed, the statute has not. Executive Order 14281 (April 2025) tells federal agencies to deprioritize disparate-impact enforcement (90 FR 17537). Private plaintiffs can still bring disparate impact claims under 2000e-2(k), and city and state rules such as New York City's bias-audit law for automated tools apply on their own terms.

Our pages on the four-fifths rule and Title VII disparate impact in AI hiring cover how to measure and document this.

What accommodations must you offer on a test?

The ADA defines discrimination to include "failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor ... that such test purports to measure" (42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(7)). The exception is where the impaired skill is itself what the test measures.

• Say in the test invitation how to request an adjustment and who handles it, separately from the hiring team.
• Common adjustments: extra time on timed tests, screen-reader-compatible formats, a human-read version, breaks, or an alternative way to show the same skill.
• Check timed and game-based assessments in particular; speed often is not what the job needs.

The same thinking applies to interviews; see ADA accommodations in interviews.

A checklist before you adopt a test

• What the test measures is linked to the job analysis, in writing.
• Vendor confirms the instrument was not designed to identify mental disorders; clinical tools held until after an offer.
• No polygraph or voice-stress tools unless an EPPA exemption clearly applies.
• Integrity modules switched off for Massachusetts roles; the s.19B notice on Massachusetts applications.
• Validation evidence obtained from the vendor, and pass rates by group monitored after launch.
• No score adjustments or cutoffs by group.
• An accommodation route in every invitation.
• Test results kept with other hiring records for at least a year (29 CFR 1627.3 lists "test papers"), longer if a charge arrives.