Organizations have a keen concern for avoiding adverse impact in personnel decision making. The most obvious reasons are typically financial and reputational in nature (e.g., avoiding class action lawsuits), but equally important may be ethical and diversity reasons tied to the organizational mission (e.g., seeking to hire a range of diversity as reflected in job applicants and customers alike). Unfortunately, no matter how adverse impact is statistically quantified, its threat is often unavoidable; it is often the case that employment tests and other selection procedures that are psychometrically reliable and valid also demonstrate meaningful subgroup differences across protected classes (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender). Selection tests and systems involving cognitive ability for race/ethnicity and physical ability for gender reflect classic situations where concerns about adverse impact consistently arise.