This case involves the recruiting and hiring of Executive Team Leaders (“ETL’s” – essentially, assistant managers) for target stores. The EEOC brought suit on behalf of four African-American applicants [only three are discussed in the excerpt because their cases are more closely related to recruiting practices] who were denied interviews and not hired. The three cases centered on the actions of a store manager, Matthew Armiger. Kalisha White failed to obtain an interview with Armiger. Her resume indicated that she belonged to an African-American sorority. She was told by Armiger that he was too busy to schedule an interview.
She then submitted another resume using a fictitious name and listing as her address a predominantly white neighborhood. A white friend then posed as the fictitious candidate and called to make an appointment. While the white friend received an interview appointment, Kalisha White was again told by Armiger that he was too busy when she called. Ralpheal Edgeston also failed to obtain an interview. She submitted her resume at a multi-cultural job fair, belonged to the same sorority as Kalisha White, listed African-American Studies as one of her majors, and included the NAACP among her organizational memberships. Despite having scheduled an appointment for a phone interview with her, Armiger failed to call at the agreed upon time and he refused to return her subsequent calls. Cherise Brown-Easley also submitted her resume through the multi-cultural job fair and the resume listed “Metropolitan Alliance of Black School Educators” among her organizational affiliations. She received an appointment for a phone interview, but Armiger again failed to call.
When the applicant called the store about a half hour later, she was told that Armiger had left for the day. She left a message for him, but her call was never returned. During the week that Armiger failed to contact Edgeston and Brown-Easley, he had been scheduled to contact nine applicants. He also failed to contact two white applicants, although at least one of these applicants was subsequently interviewed by Target.
1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
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 practices?
3. What is the evidence that the store team leader Armiger was aware of the race of the applicants? That race was a factor in the applicants not receiving interviews?
4. What changes would you recommend to Target’s recruiting and hiring practices? What should the role of store managers be?
5. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not?