Eeoc vs. Target Essay Example

and required the EEOC to file a complaint in the lawsuit. Issues to Be Discussed: The issues to be discussed are to determine: 1. If Target violated Section 709(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which basically states that every type of employment entity will need to keep and maintain records of all candidates and employment inquires in order to stay compliant with the Commission.

If Target acted in “Bad Faith”, and discriminated against these applicants. Holdings: The EEOC was able to prove its case against Target and having a negative trail court ruling reversed. It was shown through evidence that Armiger had knowledge of the race of those in the lawsuit, denied them interviews based on that. Order: under this ruling, Target was ordered to pay Daniels, White, Easley, and Brown $510,000. They also were told to revise its retention polices, provide training or record keeping, discrimination, and report hiring decisions.

The decree also stated they will need to post a notice in their stores and offices in District 110 in reference to these matters. Court Opinion/Reason: The court looked into each individual case to determine its ruling.  James Daniel Jr. : The McDonnell Douglas test was used to classify if any discrimination occurred. This test was established based on a case ruling in 1973 involving a mechanic and lab tech who was African-American. Percy Green was laid off due to lack of work in the facility, but soon after his position was posted as vacant. He reapplied, but although qualified, he was not offered the job.

Through the EEOC, Green won his case of discrimination, and it was later used to set guidelines that companies

must follow

• The employee must establish prima facie, which both the EEOC and Target agreed upon
• target had to give a reason that is non-discriminatory in nature of not hiring Daniels.

They stated he did not meet the requirements. They were unable to provide evidence that he was not qualified which the EEOC presented documentation of him being a very qualified candidate. Daniels passed all tests and went through three interviews.

There were no interview forms on Daniels, while there was forms and feedback on other candidates. 2. White, Edgeston, and Easley: Target disputed that Armiger had no knowledge of the race of the applicants, and he was carrying a very heavy workload. The EEOC was able to provide poof he knew by showing that each applicant listed information such as organization affiliation (NAACP, AKA, etc... ) that gave the impression the candidates could be African-American. The EEOC was able to also show that listening to person’s voice may also determine their ethnicity.

All of this evidence was a genuine issue of fact which led to the verdict. This case is an example of how discrimination is still alive, but in a very discrete manner. In order to prove employment discrimination, an individual would need to really know their rights and the laws. With Target being such a big box retailer, they should have known to have an applicant tracking system in place such as Brass Ring earlier. The applicants should have received much more than the award because this would send a message to other organizations to train and retain!