Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You've got to be kidding me - Target sued for not unfair hiring practices

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You've got to be kidding me - Target sued for not unfair hiring practices

    .

    "Retailer discriminates against those with criminal records, complaints to EEOC allege."


    Incredible. Not a surprise with who's bringing the lawsuit.


    It's a Catch-22. If they hire someone with a criminal record due to diversity and the lawsuit and that person ends up committing a crime the public says, "How come Target hired known criminals! They endangered their customers!"



    And then there's a lawsuit for hiring that employee.





    http://www.startribune.com/business/192087561.html



    .
    Target Corp. faces complaints about hiring practices

    Article by: DEE DEPASS , Star Tribune
    Updated: February 20, 2013 - 9:28 PM

    Retailer discriminates against those with criminal records, complaints to EEOC allege.

    The NAACP and TakeAction Minnesota accused Target Corp. of unfair hiring practices in 10 formal complaints filed Wednesday with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

    The NAACP and the community group allege the retailer’s hiring practices discriminate against applicants with criminal records. In a news conference Wednesday in Minneapolis, the groups accused Target of denying people with criminal records job interviews, even when the alleged crime was old, expunged or irrelevant to the prospective job. NAACP and TakeAction members filed 10 formal complaints with the EEOC and referenced an additional 150 cases documented over eight months.

    Target officials denied any wrongdoing and said they had met previously with TakeAction Minnesota to talk about its hiring practices.

    “We explained that Target’s criminal background check process is carefully designed to ensure that we provide a safe and secure working and shopping environment for our team members and guests while treating all candidates fairly,” said Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder in a statement. “The existence of a criminal record does not disqualify a candidate for employment at Target, unless it indicates an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of our guests, our team members or our property.”

    State Rep. Raymond Dehn, DFL-Minneapolis, said he hopes for a resolution with Target in six to nine months. Right now, the problem “is pretty widespread,” he said.

    EEOC spokeswoman Julie Schmid would not confirm or deny whether her office received the complaints. She declined to discuss the allegations.

    But Schmid said the EEOC clarified the law last year so corporations could confidently recruit workers and still comply with labor laws. The policy clarification came on the heels of Pepsi Beverages Co. being fined $3.13 million last year by the EEOC for refusing to interview or hire black workers with past arrests or convictions between 2006 and 2010.

    Schmid said employers cannot have blanket policies that bar applicants with criminal records from consideration. Such practices have been found to disproportionately affect African-Americans, she said.

    Instead, employers must review each job applicant’s situation individually, consider how long ago the arrest or conviction occurred, the nature of the incident and if it is relevant to the job, she said.

    During Wednesday’s news conference, counselor and Minnetonka resident Kissy Mason said she applied for and was offered a cashier job at Target in April. But the offer was rescinded two days later when Mason was told she was being denied a job because she had a criminal record.

    Mason said that in 2004 someone threatened her children and she responded by threatening them with bodily harm. She was convicted of making threats and given probation. Her record was expunged in 2011.

    She was surprised when Target rescinded its job offer. “It’s my favorite store,” she said.

    Jeff Martin, president of the NAACP St. Paul branch, said Target is an important part of the Twin Cities community and should do its part to help reduce Minnesota’s racial unemployment gap. Since the recession, Minnesota’s African-American unemployment swelled to 13.8 percent, compared with 5.8 percent overall.

    The complaints submitted Wednesday are “the tip of the iceberg of a massive structural problem at Target,” Martin said. “This is an opportunity for Target to lead. We are asking Target to adopt the EEOC’s [rules].”

    The flap over Target’s hiring has hit just as the Minneapolis-based retailer is dodging a controversy about wages paid to janitors who clean its stores and offices.

    Last week, Target’s contractor, Diversified Maintenance System, settled a $675,000 class-action lawsuit with Twin Cities janitors who were made to clean metro Target stores seven days a week without overtime pay. Separately contracted janitors and security guards are threatening to strike Sunday unless labor talks improve.
    .
    .

  • #2
    Lovely. Hire criminals, or else.

    Comment


    • #3
      Believe me. I feel bad that some ex-cons can't get jobs, especially ones who are trying to turn their lives around. And if I owned a business, I would decide on a case by case basis whether I'd be willing to hire an ex-con. But do I think it's grounds for a lawsuit for those who don't? Nope.


      "Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it". George Constanza.

      Comment


      • #4
        I figure a business owner should have the right to not have to hire ex-cons. :-( Don't really give a rip what their ethnicity is. If they were convicted of a crime, then the business owner should have the right to refuse employment.
        Getting shot hurts! Don't under estimate the power of live ammo. A .22LR can kill you! I personally feel that it's best to avoid being shot by any caliber. Your vest may stop the bullet, but you'll still get a nice bruise or other injury to remember the experience.

        Comment


        • #5
          There it is Gang, life in Hillary's Village. Not too surprising really. Not when you consider the fact that quite a few of our highest elected/appointed officials couldn't pass a police background investigation.

          Just more of the "hug a thug" mentality so prevalent in today's perfect world. Past that, I fully accept the thoughts expressed in Posts 3 and 4.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hey I knew a guy who was talking to the Vocational Rehabilitation people, they wanted to train him to become a Game Warden in Ohio, only one problem, he is a felon.

            Him : "Um I'm a felon"
            Them: "We are the state, we can make that go away"

            Bill
            Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

            Comment


            • #7
              When the EEOC released their "clarification" last year, everyone freaked out and started acting like there were a whole new set of laws, when actually there isn't. What they did do, however, is place significant emphasis that the EMPLOYER would have to bear the burden of proof that they did NOT do anything wrong in cases like this. Which is, of course, contrary to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept. The emphasis on race is just as unwarranted here as it is pretty much any other time it comes up.

              Mason said that in 2004 someone threatened her children and she responded by threatening them with bodily harm. She was convicted of making threats and given probation. Her record was expunged in 2011.
              I think someone needs to look up the common and legal definitions of the word expunged.

              Comment


              • #8
                If Andy was convicted of stealing from his employer in 1998 He has a hard road in front of him trying to find new employment. target. A store that has about 20million in merchandise just sitting around unguarded ( for the most part) . Andy has shown a propensity for stealing in the past. I do not want to take the chance that he would do it again. Imagine him being disgruntled. No raise, passed over for promotion etc.

                So we have another applicant, also named Andy who has no criminal record. Both are the same age, race . Which one would you hire?

                Now There have been cases where people who worked in banks for a good portion of their lives without incident were terminated for a crime 40 years ago. That is wrong.

                Let's say you hired a felon for your business. The felon "forgot" to list their criminal conviction. For what ever reason , their arrest is not picked upon a bg check. ( happens) They are a GREAT employee. They get promoted and are well liked and respected in your business. 25 years later , one day a routine bg check, gets done and they are found to be convicted of heroin trafficking , agg assault and weapons charges.

                So what do you do? Fire this GREAT employee? Suspend him for failing to disclose? Do nothing cause he is great? Yes I know he did not disclose his conviction but for 25 years he has been a Godsend to your business.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The easiest solution for many employers is to first hire through a temp agency, and only hire temp to perm as "full time". This lets them specify to the temp agency what they want, and to just send an email if the employee does not suit their needs after some time on the job.

                  Some internal job postings at my employer say no felony convictions for such and such a time period, this means existing full time employed workers cannot apply for those jobs.

                  Bill
                  Last edited by willbird; 02-21-2013, 11:32 AM.
                  Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Two things:

                    1) If they're not safe enough to be on the streets, they shouldn't be on the streets. Time served should mean they should be treated equally for non-sensitive job positions.

                    2) We need to fix recidivism in this country. Our current justice system is not doing enough to reduce repeat offenders. Once we can reduce the repeat-offender rate, #1 becomes doubly true.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
                      Two things:

                      2) We need to fix recidivism in this country. Our current justice system is not doing enough to reduce repeat offenders. Once we can reduce the repeat-offender rate, #1 becomes doubly true.
                      One Thing:

                      Recidivism has a fix.


                      It's called stop committing crimes
                      If the criminal doesn't re-offend , there is ZERO recidivism.
                      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Schmid said employers cannot have blanket policies that bar applicants with criminal records from consideration. Such practices have been found to disproportionately affect African-Americans, she said.

                        WTF???? Can someone explain to me how a policy that treats everyone EXACTLY the same affect one race disproportionately! Is its the same for all, it does NOT discriminate.

                        Unless they are saying that the policy must be amended to allow one group to be allowed to have criminal convictions, and other groups can not. That would be saying that it is ok to discriminate, that its ok to be racist, that should be EXACTLY what the EEOC should be against.

                        What's worse is that the EEOC and the NAACP are saying its expected that one group is going to have a criminal record......that's a racist statement! How can this group that's suppose to look out for the interest of minorities get away with such discrimination???

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
                          One Thing:

                          Recidivism has a fix.


                          It's called stop committing crimes
                          If the criminal doesn't re-offend , there is ZERO recidivism.
                          If someone with one offence on their record 10 years ago is denied minimum wage jobs and housing (appartments do bg checks for residents) going back to rob that gas station for a second time with hopes of not getting caught this time seems like the only way to get money.

                          PS: If nobody commited crime you wouldn't have your jobs.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
                            One Thing:

                            Recidivism has a fix.


                            It's called stop committing crimes
                            If the criminal doesn't re-offend , there is ZERO recidivism.
                            There has to be a reason we have an 88% recidivism rate, and many other 1st world countries do not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Next, employers will get sued for other unfair hiring practices. Such as basing a hiring decision on the potential employee's lack of past work history and lack of references.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3043 users online. 145 members and 2898 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X