Case Analyses

Case 1: EEOC V. Target Corporation Case

The EEOC charged that Target violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants for managerial positions. The EEOC also alleged that Target violated the Act when it failed to make and preserve records relevant to the determination whether unlawful employment practices had been, or were being, committed (www.eeoc.gov).

In the EEOC v. Target Corporation case, the plaintiff proved the violation of Civil Act (1964) Title VII. The plaintiff claimed that Target had engaged in racial discrimination against the applicants belonging to African-American descent. Target did not entertain the applications of these applicants for the managerial positions at its stores. The claim rested on the fact that Target could not maintain the records of the prospective recruits, showing that it committed, or intended to commit, unlawful employment practices. In December 2007, the EEOC and Target entered into a consent decree that ended the litigation. Target agreed to pay $510,000 to the plaintiffs, revise its document-retention policies, train supervisors in legal compliance, and report on hiring decisions (www.eeoc.gov).

This case presents a good example of a failure to follow data retention policies Given the various time limitations imposed by federal law for particular employment records, it is advisable to observe some general rules regarding retention that gives a wide berth to the legal requirements. Table 2-3 infra sets out the maximum number of years a particular type of record must be maintained under federal law.

However, there are sound reasons to retain records for a period beyond that required by federal law. For example, in a case which an employee files suit alleging that a particular employment decision was discriminatory, the employer may be required to come forward with evidence showing that decision was based on legitimate ...