EEOC v Target
Killgore Knight
12 February 2015
Homework Assignment #3
EEOC v Target Corporation
1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
The issue was whether there was disparate treatment based on race in the recruitment and hiring process at Target. The court also considered the issue of whether the employer’s failure to retain resumes and interview forms violated Title VII’s record retention requirements. The district court granted summary judgment to Target on both issues. Target entered into a consent decree that ended the litigation. Target agreed to pay $510,000 to the plaintiffs, revise its document-retention policies, train supervisors in legal compliance, and report on hiring decisions.
2) What are the obligations of an employer regarding the retention of records related to recruiting? What problems does the court identify with Target’s record-retention practice?
Employers are required by Title VII to make and keep such records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. More specifically, the EEOC’s record keeping regulations require that employers retain applications and other documents related to hiring for one year. Additionally, if a charge of discrimination has been filed, an employer is required to retain all relevant personnel records until the final disposition of the charge. Target uses a website based recruiting method on a program called Brass Ring to store documents submitted by applicants. Target’s record retention policy does not address the retention of documents when an EEOC charge is filed, but they say that they handle these situations on a case by case basis. The policy relies on the managers and recruiters to maintain this policy and they also stated that they do not have punishment or incentives for following this procedure. Armiger admitted to discarding the paperwork of the plaintiffs and other employees also said that they have also discarded
12 February 2015
Homework Assignment #3
EEOC v Target Corporation
1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
The issue was whether there was disparate treatment based on race in the recruitment and hiring process at Target. The court also considered the issue of whether the employer’s failure to retain resumes and interview forms violated Title VII’s record retention requirements. The district court granted summary judgment to Target on both issues. Target entered into a consent decree that ended the litigation. Target agreed to pay $510,000 to the plaintiffs, revise its document-retention policies, train supervisors in legal compliance, and report on hiring decisions.
2) What are the obligations of an employer regarding the retention of records related to recruiting? What problems does the court identify with Target’s record-retention practice?
Employers are required by Title VII to make and keep such records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. More specifically, the EEOC’s record keeping regulations require that employers retain applications and other documents related to hiring for one year. Additionally, if a charge of discrimination has been filed, an employer is required to retain all relevant personnel records until the final disposition of the charge. Target uses a website based recruiting method on a program called Brass Ring to store documents submitted by applicants. Target’s record retention policy does not address the retention of documents when an EEOC charge is filed, but they say that they handle these situations on a case by case basis. The policy relies on the managers and recruiters to maintain this policy and they also stated that they do not have punishment or incentives for following this procedure. Armiger admitted to discarding the paperwork of the plaintiffs and other employees also said that they have also discarded