> The former is illegal under a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that decreed IQ tests and other tests unrelated to the job to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964
This is patently false, and in this context (flat out stating that a hiring practice is illegal) quite arguably libelous.
The case in question:
(1) Did not rule that IQ tests violate the Civil Rights Act,
(2) Did not rule that tests unrelated to job functions violate the Civil Rights Act, and
(3) Did not characterize IQ tests are, categorically, unrelated to job functions.
What it did rule was that:
(A) The IQ tests used were unrelated to the job functions the employer in the case was using them for, and
(B) The IQ test used produced a differential adverse impact on black applicants for the positions, and
(C) Tests or other hiring criteria that produce and differential adverse impact on applicants based on a protected class (like race) and which are also unrelated (or not sufficiently related) to job functions violate the Civil Rights Act.
There are a number of subsequent cases where IQ tests have been found not to be unrelated to the job functions they were being used to screen applicants for.
I remember when sfgate was an imprint of the SF Chronicle (and the latter was a respected regional newspaper) with serious journalistic quality, but it seems to have degraded into trash where the attention to factual detail that goes into random anonymous forum posts is about all articles get.