This document discusses the proposed "Rights and Responsibilities of Test Takers" from the perspective of a large employer using employment testing to predict future performance in a variety of jobs. It is suggested that the proposed document will impede an employer's ability to use tests for selection purposes in three ways. The existence of the document will raise doubts about the utility of employment testing and cause industrial and organizational psychologists to spend more time defending what they do than they spend doing it. A second concern is that of legal defensibility and violations of professional standards. A third is that the requirements of the proposed document are so onerous that many employers will not be able to meet the requirements even if they wanted to. Specific criticism of the document begin with the use of the word "Rights," and the complications that it causes employers. In addition, the tone of the document implies a profession in need of policing. Another concern is the potential for conflicts with existing federal, state, and local laws if certain groups receive special consideration as a "right." This concern extends to the definition of what all the rights really are. "Rights" that require appropriately trained test administrators, scorers, and interpreters open a number of problems with regard to training. "Rights" that require test takers to receive scores promptly or in particular terms cause other problems of definition. Along with all the other opportunities for controversy that the "rights" may cause, they are primarily designed for paper and pencil tests, and leave out alternative testing methods. Rather than being regarded as a document of rights, the proposed "Rights and Responsibilities" should be a guideline for interacting with test takers. (Contains one table.) (SLD)