Target Corporation, the second-largest discount store retailer in the United States, has reached a settlement with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF) and the law firm of Outten & Golden LLP to resolve allegations that the company’s overly broad and outdated criminal background check policy discriminated against African-American and Latino applicants.
Source: Ekaterina79 / iStock / Getty Images Plus
As part of the settlement, filed on behalf of a class of job applicants, Target will institute a hiring process for class members to obtain jobs at any of Target’s approximately 1,800 U.S. retail stores. Class members who would not benefit from a Target job (because, for example, they are already employed, retired or have a disability) are eligible for a cash award. The settlement, under which Target has agreed to pay over $3.7 million, was filed contemporaneously with a complaint in the Southern District of New York and is subject to court approval.
Changes to Company Policy
Under Target’s criminal background check policy, a disproportionate number of otherwise qualified African-American and Latino applicants were automatically disqualified from employment opportunities.
“Target’s background check policy was out of step with best practices and harmful to many qualified applicants who deserved a fair shot at a good job,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel at LDF, in announcing the settlement. “Criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for screening job applicants, but only when appropriately linked to relevant questions such as how long ago the offense occurred and whether it was a non-violent or misdemeanor offense. Overly broad background screenings unfairly limit opportunities for Black and Latino applicants due to widespread discrimination at every stage in the criminal justice system. We commend Target for agreeing to this settlement, which will help create economic opportunities for deserving Americans.”
In the settlement, Target has also agreed to work with two of the nation’s top experts to review its current background check policies and determine what needs to be revised in those policies so that only applicants whose criminal record is job related and recent enough to pose a realistic threat to the company and its customers faces disqualification. Target will also make a monetary contribution to assist not-for-profit organizations that provide reentry support to individuals with criminal records.
Applicants Seeking Opportunities
In the lawsuit, LDF and Outten & Golden represent Carnella Times and Erving Smith, who received conditional employment offers from Target after interviews. The offers were later revoked when the company’s screening process found that Times had two decade-old misdemeanor convictions and Smith had a decade-old drug-related felony. The Greater Hartford Legal Aid filed the initial charge of discrimination on behalf of Times with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2006.
“I faced many challenges because of a conviction in my early twenties,” said Smith. “But with perseverance, a great support system, and the opportunity to obtain a living wage, I have become a successful tax-paying member of society. Everyone deserves a second chance and I am happy that Target has agreed to offer qualified individuals jobs.”
The Fortune Society, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals, is also represented in the lawsuit based on its claim that Target’s hiring practices affect many of its clients who apply and are denied employment or are deterred from applying because of the company’s policy.
Plaintiffs allege that Target’s policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment practices that have an unjustified disparate impact on the basis of race and national origin. Among other failings, plaintiffs allege that Target’s policy penalized applicants who did not fully disclose arrests or convictions, whether for memory lapses due to the age of convictions, confusion as to whether they had been actually convicted of certain crimes or whether their convictions had been removed from their records or sealed under youthful offender or other laws. Plaintiffs further contend that Target barred candidates from employment for unnecessarily long periods following a conviction and that it lacked a system for considering candidates’ rehabilitation since the time of their conviction.
“As one of the largest employers in the U.S., Target can serve as a model to other employers—proving that fair and nondiscriminatory screening policies can still ensure companies hire skilled and reliable employees,” said Ossai Miazad, partner and co-chair of the Discrimination and Retaliation Practice Group at Outten & Golden.