Target Agrees to $3.74M Settlement Over Discriminatory Hiring Practice Claims
The national retailer was alleged to have unfairly excluded qualified African-American and Latino candidates for hire due to automatic rejections over criminal histories.
April 05, 2018 at 04:05 PM
3 minute read
Target has agreed to a settlement over allegations that the national retailer's hiring practices unfairly affected African-American and Latino job applicants.
Target's hiring process since 2001 required a criminal background check. Candidates with certain misdemeanor and felony convictions that involved violence, theft or drugs were automatically rejected. Candidates that were discovered to have not accurately told the company about prior criminal convictions were also automatically rejected.
The process, according to the plaintiffs, “imported the racial and ethnic disparities that exist in the criminal justice system into the employment process.” The filings note that African-Americans and Latinos are arrested and convicted of crimes at more than double the rate of whites.
In 2007, Carnella Times, a plaintiff in the suit, filed a discrimination complaint with the federal U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over Target's hiring practice. In August 2011, the EEOC issued a finding that the company's background check policy had discriminated against a class of applicants. Discussions between the parties after years of investigations led to the settlement filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for the New York employment law firm Outten & Golden said the settlement “will not only open job opportunities for thousands of individuals previously disqualified because of their justice involvement, but revise Target's hiring policies and practices …”
“Outten & Golden hopes that through this example, other companies will review their hiring policies and practices and consider every candidate based on their qualifications for the job,” the spokeswoman said.
Target agreed to pay $3.74 million to resolve the lawsuit. The funds will cover potential payments to class members, who will be afforded an opportunity to be hired by Target, with a potential $1,000 award in lieu of employment in certain situations. Nonprofits that support re-entry for previously incarcerated people will have access to $600,000 from the settlement. Approximately $1.9 million of the agreement will be set aside for attorney fees.
The company has also agreed to hire independent experts to help improve its hiring process going forward, the costs of which will be borne by the company apart from those agreed to in the settlement.
In a statement, Target spokeswoman Danielle Schumann provided details on the company's hiring process, noting that, like many company's, Target began checking backgrounds as part of the hiring process. Now, she said, the company has removed the criminal history question from employment applications, and only gathers information in the final stages of hiring as the company “still believe[s] it is important to consider an individual's criminal conviction history as part of the overall hiring process.”
“We exclude applicants whose criminal histories could pose a risk to our guests, team members or property, and design our process to treat all applicants fairly while maintaining a safe and secure working and shopping environment for team members and guests,” she said, adding: “We're glad to resolve this and move forward.”
The case has not yet been assigned to a judge.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250