Rasmussen College EEOC vs Target Case Study Paper After reading the case study conduct independent research to help support your paper. Then in a 2 – 3 pag

Rasmussen College EEOC vs Target Case Study Paper After reading the case study conduct independent research to help support your paper. Then in a 2 – 3 page paper address the following:

Provide an overview that summarizes the EEOC case against Target
Identify the key issues involved
Explain the facts of the case by defining:
What are the general barriers to legally defensible staffing?
What are testers and how does the EEOC use them?
What would have been proper record retention in this case?
Your conclusion on the case study
Be sure to use APA style with at least two sources cited Case Study
CASE: EEOC v. Target
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21483
7th Circuit
Facts of the Case:
In early 2000, an African-American name James Daniel, Jr. applied for an Executive Team
Leader position with Target. He was given tests, which he passed placing him in a very high
percentile of those who have been previously tested. Unfortunately he was not hired, and
was given the explanation of not meeting the requirements of the position. Daniels did not
receive any feedback as to what requirement he was meeting in the interviewing process.
Later three other African-American applicants, Kalisa White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise
Brown inquired about the same position involving contact with the Store Team Leader
Matthew Armiger. White sent her resume and called to schedule an interview, but was told
by Armiger on several occasions he was busy. She then enlisted the help of a friend who
was Caucasian. This friend sent her resume and acted as if she was “Sarah Brucker”, but
used White’s correct phone number. Her friend was able to contact Armiger and obtain an
interview, while White called 15 minutes later and was told he was busy. Ralpheal
Edegeston submitted her resume also and was unsuccessful in obtaining an
interview. Cherise Brown-Easley however was able to schedule a phone interview, but
Armiger was not available during the scheduled time and did not contact Easley to
reschedule. He also did not return repeated phone calls for rescheduling. It was in 2001
when White decided to file a case with the EEOC based on discrimination in the hiring
process.
After investigating the EEOC determined Target violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, particularly Section 709(c), by not keeping proper documentation nor retain records
as required. This issue was not resolved and required the EEOC to file a complaint in the
lawsuit requesting a court hearing.
Under the two-and-one-half-year consent decree ending this nearly six-year old litigation
(Civil Action No. 02-C-0146, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in Feb. 2002), Target agreed to pay a total of $510,000 to Kalisha White,
Ralpheal Edgeston Brown, Cherise Brown Easley, and James Daniels, Jr. – African
Americans who were denied jobs as assistant store managers in 2000 and 2001. As part of
the decree, Target also agreed to revise its document retention policies; provide training to
supervisors on employment discrimination and record-keeping; report on hiring decisions;
and post a notice about the consent decree to employees in its District 110 stores and
offices.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment