Target Pays $510,000 for Wisconsin Race Discrimination

April 3rd, 2008 Posted by Amelia

A landmark case against Target has widespread implications for employers. In the racial discrimination case, the appeals court ruled that the employer may have determined the applicant’s race from their names, or from their “accents” heard during phone conversations.

The EEOC recently announced a settlement with Target in a suit on race discrimination in Wisconsin.

The retail giant was accused of not hiring African Americans based on their race, in District 110, which includes Milwaukee and Madison Wisconsin. The company was also accused of failing to keep applications, resumes and other documents as required by law.

The consent decree, ending nearly 6 years of litigation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. It was signed by District Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

Under the agreement, Target agreed to pay a total of $510,000 to four African Americans who were denied assistant store manager jobs based on race in 2000 and 2001. The four are Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston Brown, Cherise Brown Easley and James Daniels, Jr.

As part of the decree, Target agreed to:

  • Implement improved document handling practices
  • Provide training to supervisors on preventing race discrimination
  • Report future hiring decisions
  • Post a notice of the decree for employees in all District 110 stores and offices

Ironically, that consent decree was signed by the same judge who earlier threw out the discrimination suit against Target. In 2006, Judge Randa dismissed the case because the EEOC failed to show sufficient evidence. An appeals court unanimously overturned that ruling, and ruled that the EEOC had presented sufficient evidence. The appeals court also ruled that a trial was necessary to determine whether Target had destroyed employment applications in bad faith.

John Rowe, director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, said that the appeals court decision was “noteworthy for its ruling that the trial court could admit into evidence expert testimony to the effect that the employer may have racially identified the applicants as African American on the basis of their names or accents heard during telephone conversations.”

EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “We think it’s fair to count the resolution of this case as a success for all concerned. There has been an important precedent-setting decision which will be important in future challenges to race discrimination on the job. The individuals upon whose behalf the EEOC brought this particular case are going to receive fair relief, and Target is going to be able to put the case behind it and move forward with its business as an important retailer.”

Dennis McBride, who led the EEOC litigation effort in the Milwaukee Area Office added, “We’re pleased that Target has agreed to resolve this case and move forward. The consent decree entered today will help ensure that all Target applicants will receive fair consideration.”

In January 2007, Target Corp. paid $775,000 for racial harassment to settle a suit. The suit alleged that Target Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by creating a racially hostile work environment at the Springfield, Pennsylvania Target store.

In that suit, the EEOC said that Michael Hill was an apprentice in training to become a store manager. He was subjected to racial harassment by a white store manager. When Hill complained, he was retaliated against, leaving him no choice but to resign.

Target operates more than 1,500 stores in 47 states, including 175 SuperTarget stores. As part of the settlement, Target agreed to train employees at the Springfield store.

“We are pleased that the parties could reach an amicable resolution of this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “We expect the proposed training and emphasis on anti-discrimination policies to create a more employee-friendly work environment at Target’s facility.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to deny any person employment due to race, color, sex, religion or national origin. That includes providing a work environment free from illegal harassment and different treatment based on race. In addition, Title VII recognizes that a company that creates an intolerable environment essentially forces the employee to resign. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against someone because he or she has made a complaint of illegal discrimination.

All of the companies mentioned in this article deny any wrongdoing.

Last 10 posts by Amelia

« Ohio FMLA Update
New FMLA, NDAA Rules for Alaska »
Posted in Federal Labor Laws, Judicial Decisions

  1. Posted by: kevin walker

    Hello, my name is Kevin Walker. I have been employed at a juvenile justice center in Philadelphia for about two years. Within this time I have been harrassed by the Director of all programs who was once the supervisor. In total I have been harrassed for about a year in a half. Examples: late night phone calls, usage of an adolescent client to inquire about me or pass messages, and creating a hostile work environment. Recently she told me she heard I was seeing someone at the agency, then went on to make derogatory statements about the person. When I declined to elaborate on the relationship the supervisor said that if I were to be with her, I could live in her Pallacio home and that I would be well provided for. I didn’t respond so the Director said,”Oh I hope you don’t feel I’m harrassing you” as she walked away laughing. Since that conversation false accusations have been made against me as well as my judgement being questioned.
    The Director even has her boss harrassing me. For example, I couldn’t be located during my shift for 15 minutes, so they wanted to write me up. I was in the bathroom, but they didnt want to hear it. After the meeting the Director’s secretary informed me that the Director and her boss were laughing and joking about me and how I was cowering when being questioned. I never received the write up, the meeting was in March. Today I was asked to forge documents that would get a resident kicked out of the house. Because I didn’t want to do it, I was called today to sign the write up I was to receive two months ago. What do you suggest I do?

  2. Posted by: Amelia

    Hi Kevin! Wow, this is a complex situation. For a complete answer, post a question on our sister site at http://www.laborlawtalk.com. Since you work for a state agency, and have been asked to falsify documents, the first step would be to report that illegal conduct. Best of luck with your situation! Amelia

RELATED LINKS

Subscribe to RSS

Subscribe to this blog via email
Delivered by FeedBurner
add