Sometimes employers create requirements for jobs that have the best intentions, but yet still end up creating an environment for adverse impact. One example is the NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue . Here the employer initiated a residency requirement for applicants. They defended it as a business necessity because they believed that people who lived in the area would provide faster response times, be more familiar with the geography, and have a better chance of speaking Spanish. The appeals court ultimately struck down this residency requirement as creating an adverse impact. If you were in charge of HR for this organization, what neutral requirements would you suggest that would meet the needs of fast response times, familiarity with the area, and recruiting more Spanish speakers - without creating adverse impact?