Online platforms mediate access to opportunity: relevance-based rankings create and constrain options by allocating exposure to job openings and job candidates in hiring platforms, or sellers in a marketplace. In order to do so responsibly, these socially consequential systems employ various fairness measures and interventions, many of which seek to allocate exposure based on worthiness. Because these constructs are typically not directly observable, platforms must instead resort to using proxy scores such as relevance and infer them from behavioral signals such as searcher clicks. Yet, it remains an open question whether relevance fulfills its role as such a worthiness score in high-stakes fair rankings. In this paper, we combine perspectives and tools from the social sciences, information retrieval, and fairness in machine learning to derive a set of desired criteria that relevance scores should satisfy in order to meaningfully guide fairness interventions. We then empirically show that not all of these criteria are met in a case study of relevance inferred from biased user click data. We assess the impact of these violations on the estimated system fairness and analyze whether existing fairness interventions may mitigate the identified issues. Our analyses and results surface the pressing need for new approaches to relevance collection and generation that are suitable for use in fair ranking.