The case involving the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

220 views 4 pages ~ 957 words
Get a Custom Essay Writer Just For You!

Experts in this subject field are ready to write an original essay following your instructions to the dot!

Hire a Writer

Racial Prejudice in the Workplace

Racial prejudice in the workplace is illegal, as the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Target Corporation case showed. The Target Corporation was found guilty of a civil offense by the US District Court for using racial employment discrimination. As a result, it was required to pay $2.8 million to resolve the claim. (Randa, 2007). The court also noted that the business violated the terms of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by using discriminatory hiring practices to exclude some people based on their sex and race. (Edge, 2014). Target Corporation failed to comply with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Edge, 2014).

Effects of Discrimination in Hiring

The laws that the EEOC applied

Target Corporation failed to comply with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after discriminating African Americans. Consequently, various individuals were affected because they could not be hired as deputy managers in the stores. Some of these included James Daniels Jr., Cherise Easley, Raphael Brown and Kalisha White in 2001 and 2000 (Edge, 2014). The court established that there was enough evidence that Target Corporation acted against the law to deny employment to the four persons as managers based on their race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws segregation in terms of national origin, sex, religion, color or race in public accommodations, employment and in schools (Randa, 2007). According to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to establish employment assessment intended to screen out people from their professional positions in terms of sex and race. Moreover, the assessments contravened this law because they were inconsistent with the business need and were disproportionally job-related. Precisely, Section 703(a) makes it illegal for an employer to classify, segregate or limit job applicant’s chances of employment because of his or her national origin, sex, religion, color, and race (Edge, 2014).

Violation of Record Keeping Rules

Section 709 (c) of the Civil Right Act also stipulates that a company must maintain all records relevant to evaluate the effects of its hiring process. However, Target Corporation had acted contrary to the record keeping rules (Edge, 2014). The court also revealed that one of the assessment conducted by the company prior to the hiring process was against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In this regard, the judges noted that Target Corporation executed a medical examination prior to employment contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act (Randa, 2007).

Bias-free Responsibilities of an Employer

Bias-free Responsibilities of an employer in hiring process

Employers are supposed to develop mechanism, which are free from discrimination or bias in the hiring process. Moreover, the employer is responsible of adherence of proper employment practices. For instance, he/she should not segregate against any persons with regard to the individual's privileges, conditions, terms, and compensation of employment (Edge, 2014). It also outlaws discernment based on the national origin, sex, religion, color and race of the person. Labour organizations have a responsibility to uphold fairness in the membership process. Therefore, it is illegal for labor unions to expel or exclude a person due to his or her national origin, sex, religion, color and race. Similarly, they have a duty to avoid classification of its members based on these set conditions. Moreover, employers should conduct the trainings programs such as apprenticeship and on-the-job training without any form of discrimination. Therefore, the employer has a duty to practice proper employment procedures devoid of segregation of job applications with regard to their national origin, sex, religion, color and race (Randa, 2007). Target Corporation failed at meet their obligations because it was segregating members of African Americans from certain employment opportunities in the company. The court established that most people were unfavorably affected when the company utilized discriminatory assessments in the process of hiring (Edge, 2014).

Recommendation to Target Corporation

Recommendation to Target Corporation

Target Corporation should embrace a wide range of measures in order to comply with the provisions of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. Precisely, the company should discontinue utilizing the job assessment programs that contravened the law. Therefore, the organization should avoid using those tests in the process of job selection (Edge, 2014). Moreover, the firm should transform its job applicant monitoring systems to guarantee that data collection is adequate to determine the negative effect. The organization should also conduct an analytical validity research for all exempt tests that are being used and those that it intended to use (Randa, 2007). More importantly, the firm should set up a system, which can be used to deliver detailed summary of the records to the EEOC as well as records of impact analysis.

Furthermore, Target Corporation should initiate a training program where human resource managers who are in charge of exempt assessment implementation and development should be trained on various issues such as pre-employment health tests, the ADA, and record keeping. Finally, the firm should launch a corrective mechanism to promote the validity of the process of hiring. The company must also encourage partnership with EEOC (Randa, 2007).



EEOC v. Target Corporation was a case that demonstrated how some companies use discriminatory procedures in the hiring process in order to lock out people because of their religion, race or gender (Edge, 2014). Four African Americans were victims of such process because the company did not want them to occupy managerial positions. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stipulates that such procedures are unlawful (Randa, 2007). Therefore, the company should develop strategies to ensure fairness and justice to all Americans irrespective of their sexual orientation, races or religion.


Edge, A. A. (2014). Final Portfolio Project: EEOC v. Target Corp. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 51(2), 375.

Randa, J. R. T. (2007). EEOC v. Target Corporation. Southern Law Journal, 22(1), 89.

July 15, 2023

Law Enforcement Learning

Number of pages


Number of words




Writer #



Expertise Case Study
Verified writer

Participating in gun control for my college class, I worked with Lennon70 who took just a quick look at the replies and helped me participate in the most efficient way. A great writer who is a lot of fun!

Hire Writer

This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Eliminate the stress of Research and Writing!

Hire one of our experts to create a completely original paper even in 3 hours!

Hire a Pro

Similar Categories