Current Events > Target to pay 3.74 million for discrimination against blacks and Hispanics

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Balrog0 04/12/18 4:36:45 PM #52:	what is the current case law around criminal background checks? The EEOC says: Take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; among people who have a disability; or among people age 40 or older. For example, employers should not use a policy or practice that excludes people with certain criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals of a particular race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. In legal terms, the policy or practice has a "disparate impact" and is not "job related and consistent with business necessity." without looking into it, it does seem like a difficult case to win, but the practice is so widespread I assume this has been settled before? --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899542317] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>what is the current case law around criminal background checks? The EEOC says: Take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; among people who have a disability; or among people age 40 or older. For example, employers should not use a policy or practice that excludes people with certain criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals of a particular race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. In legal terms, the policy or practice has a "disparate impact" and is not "job related and consistent with business necessity." without looking into it, it does seem like a difficult case to win, but the practice is so widespread I assume this has been settled before?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 4:44:31 PM #53:	like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right?? --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899542788] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right??</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 04/12/18 4:46:48 PM #54:	Balrog0 posted... like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right?? It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:899542932] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right??</quote> It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rika_Furude 04/12/18 4:48:47 PM #55:	Balrog0 posted... what is the current case law around criminal background checks? The EEOC says: Take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; among people who have a disability; or among people age 40 or older. For example, employers should not use a policy or practice that excludes people with certain criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals of a particular race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. In legal terms, the policy or practice has a "disparate impact" and is not "job related and consistent with business necessity." without looking into it, it does seem like a difficult case to win, but the practice is so widespread I assume this has been settled before? Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>Rika_Furude posted [p:899543041] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> what is the current case law around criminal background checks? The EEOC says: Take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race, color, national origin, sex, or religion; among people who have a disability; or among people age 40 or older. For example, employers should not use a policy or practice that excludes people with certain criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals of a particular race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. In legal terms, the policy or practice has a "disparate impact" and is not "job related and consistent with business necessity." without looking into it, it does seem like a difficult case to win, but the practice is so widespread I assume this has been settled before?</quote> Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 4:51:10 PM #56:	s0nicfan posted... It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it. the LDF loses cases, though... I'd believe it was a PR thing Rika_Furude posted... Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees. What is the case law regarding that? --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899543163] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it.</quote> the LDF loses cases, though... I'd believe it was a PR thing <cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.</quote> What is the case law regarding that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 04/12/18 4:53:48 PM #57:	Target has been having a rough time lately. --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:899543317] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>Target has been having a rough time lately.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rika_Furude 04/12/18 4:57:10 PM #58:	Balrog0 posted... s0nicfan posted... It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it. the LDF loses cases, though... I'd believe it was a PR thing Rika_Furude posted... Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees. What is the case law regarding that? What are you asking? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>Rika_Furude posted [p:899543506] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote> It was extortion money. The NAACP backed it.</quote> the LDF loses cases, though... I'd believe it was a PR thing <cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote> Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.</quote> What is the case law regarding that?</quote> What are you asking?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gmanthebest 04/12/18 5:00:08 PM #59:	Balrog0 posted... like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right?? Good PR. Plus, it would probably cost them more going through the court. --- What do I feel when I shoot an enemy? Recoil. <cite>gmanthebest posted [p:899543667] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right??</quote> Good PR. Plus, it would probably cost them more going through the court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 5:01:04 PM #60:	Rika_Furude posted... What are you asking? What are you basing that, 'Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.' as a legal standard? I mean I am sure that is true because it is so widespread. But what makes you think so? My assumption here is that background checks probably can't be as broad as people assume they can be without running into anti-discrimination laws but I don't know. Also if you are not American then I guess it would be interesting to know how your country handles this but it wouldnt necessarily apply here --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899543720] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>What are you asking? </quote> What are you basing that, 'Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.' as a legal standard? I mean I am sure that is true because it is so widespread. But what makes you think so? My assumption here is that background checks probably can't be as broad as people assume they can be without running into anti-discrimination laws but I don't know. Also if you are not American then I guess it would be interesting to know how your country handles this but it wouldnt necessarily apply here</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#61	Post #61 was unavailable or deleted.
Zanzenburger 04/12/18 5:03:35 PM #62:	eggcorn posted... Zanzenburger posted... This is an interesting case. Personally, I think that the amount is kinda ridiculous for Target doing something that most businesses due as standard practice. However, there is a big problem with companies that do background checks at the beginning of the hiring process or ask about the criminal record in the application. When people think of criminal records, they immediately think of murderers and drug dealers and rapists. But the vast majority of people with criminal records (I need to find some recent stats) are due to domestic violence (spouses got into a fight), petty theft, child abuse/neglect (can sometimes be something as simple as letting their kids play outside unsupervised), public intoxication (being drunk outside a bar), or a dispute between neighbors. In a lot of these cases, the "criminals" are just people that did something stupid and got caught and punished for it. But employers rarely take that into account in the hiring process. In the hiring committees I've been in, they see the criminal record checked 'yes', and they toss the application, without being bothered to see what the reason is. The most unfortunate part is that most applications will even state in their fine print that a criminal record alone does not disqualify you from a job, but in process that's pretty much the case. For those who watch Shameless, there is a great example of this. One of the characters makes a really stupid mistake which is ultimately ruled as a felony. Fast forward to the future and she has turned her life around and is making her way up. She even gets an interview with an entry-level company. They are overly nice to her and are impressed with her skills. The second they see the 'yes' checked on the criminal record box they change their demeanor and let her go. I do believe that saving the background check to the end of the interview process is worthwhile, because at least the person has a chance to impress the hiring committee before they find out about their past. They can then explain how they've learned from their past and have shown to be a competent applicant. Should a person really be punished for the rest of their lives for being arrested for something as simple as public indecency or disorderly conduct 10 years ago? That's not true at all. Which part? Not checking the reason for a criminal record, or the fine print saying a criminal record doesn't automatically disqualify you for a job? If you mean the former, I have been on at least 10 different hiring committees across five companies where they don't take more than a second glance at an application with a criminal record. Regarding the latter, I think I've applied for at least 500 jobs in the last three years, and every single position for a company that hires people with a criminal past has that statement somewhere on their application or their website. Either that or they will clearly state somewhere that they don't consider people with criminal records. This does not count felony convictions, though. There are far fewer companies that will hire felons, compared to people with lesser crimes and misdemeanors. --- Congratulations! Your post was deemed response-worthy. <cite>Zanzenburger posted [p:899543852] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>eggcorn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zanzenburger posted...</cite> <quote>This is an interesting case. Personally, I think that the amount is kinda ridiculous for Target doing something that most businesses due as standard practice. However, there is a big problem with companies that do background checks at the beginning of the hiring process or ask about the criminal record in the application. When people think of criminal records, they immediately think of murderers and drug dealers and rapists. But the vast majority of people with criminal records (I need to find some recent stats) are due to domestic violence (spouses got into a fight), petty theft, child abuse/neglect (can sometimes be something as simple as letting their kids play outside unsupervised), public intoxication (being drunk outside a bar), or a dispute between neighbors. In a lot of these cases, the "criminals" are just people that did something stupid and got caught and punished for it. But employers rarely take that into account in the hiring process. In the hiring committees I've been in, they see the criminal record checked 'yes', and they toss the application, without being bothered to see what the reason is. The most unfortunate part is that most applications will even state in their fine print that a criminal record alone does not disqualify you from a job, but in process that's pretty much the case. For those who watch Shameless, there is a great example of this. One of the characters makes a really stupid mistake which is ultimately ruled as a felony. Fast forward to the future and she has turned her life around and is making her way up. She even gets an interview with an entry-level company. They are overly nice to her and are impressed with her skills. The second they see the 'yes' checked on the criminal record box they change their demeanor and let her go. I do believe that saving the background check to the end of the interview process is worthwhile, because at least the person has a chance to impress the hiring committee before they find out about their past. They can then explain how they've learned from their past and have shown to be a competent applicant. Should a person really be punished for the rest of their lives for being arrested for something as simple as public indecency or disorderly conduct 10 years ago?</quote> That's not true at all.</quote> Which part? Not checking the reason for a criminal record, or the fine print saying a criminal record doesn't automatically disqualify you for a job? If you mean the former, I have been on at least 10 different hiring committees across five companies where they don't take more than a second glance at an application with a criminal record. Regarding the latter, I think I've applied for at least 500 jobs in the last three years, and every single position for a company that hires people with a criminal past has that statement somewhere on their application or their website. Either that or they will clearly state somewhere that they don't consider people with criminal records. This does not count felony convictions, though. There are far fewer companies that will hire felons, compared to people with lesser crimes and misdemeanors.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KStateKing17 04/12/18 5:08:34 PM #63:	Rika_Furude posted... So what happens next when an enployee rapes someone instore and then target is sued for not doing background checks? What the hell? That's such an extreme scenario. Does the store get sued for that if the rapist is a first time offender? --- The 17th King of the State of K <cite>KStateKing17 posted [p:899544152] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>So what happens next when an enployee rapes someone instore and then target is sued for not doing background checks?</quote> What the hell? That's such an extreme scenario. Does the store get sued for that if the rapist is a first time offender?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/12/18 5:09:38 PM #64:	KStateKing17 posted... Rika_Furude posted... So what happens next when an enployee rapes someone instore and then target is sued for not doing background checks? What the hell? They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899544212] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>KStateKing17 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>So what happens next when an enployee rapes someone instore and then target is sued for not doing background checks?</quote> What the hell?</quote> They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 5:11:18 PM #65:	The Admiral posted... They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons. is that something they could be held legally liable for? specifically because they didn't attempt to do a background check on the initial application? I seriously doubt it (though of course someone could sue them for that reason or any other reason they feel like) --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899544304] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons. </quote> is that something they could be held legally liable for? specifically because they didn't attempt to do a background check on the initial application? I seriously doubt it (though of course someone could sue them for that reason or any other reason they feel like)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/12/18 5:19:16 PM #66:	Balrog0 posted... The Admiral posted... They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons. is that something they could be held legally liable for? specifically because they didn't attempt to do a background check on the initial application? I seriously doubt it (though of course someone could sue them for that reason or any other reason they feel like) I don't know if this has happened in a consumer business like Target, but a landlord was sued for not running a background check on a tenant who later went on to kill a child: https://patch.com/georgia/canton-ga/jorelys-rivera-s-mother-sues-river-ridge --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899544745] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>They pay millions more. But that's a small price to pay not to hurt the feelings of convicted felons. </quote> is that something they could be held legally liable for? specifically because they didn't attempt to do a background check on the initial application? I seriously doubt it (though of course someone could sue them for that reason or any other reason they feel like)</quote> I don't know if this has happened in a consumer business like Target, but a landlord was sued for not running a background check on a tenant who later went on to kill a child: https://patch.com/georgia/canton-ga/jorelys-rivera-s-mother-sues-river-ridge</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 5:22:03 PM #67:	did she win? --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899544911] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>did she win?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 04/12/18 5:25:07 PM #68:	Wait so who are they paying it out to? Who gets the money? --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:899545099] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>Wait so who are they paying it out to? Who gets the money?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#69	Post #69 was unavailable or deleted.
Mistere Man 04/12/18 5:34:00 PM #70:	M_Live posted... s0nicfan posted... Note: It runs a criminal background check on ALL applicants, regardless of race. This lawsuit claims that this unbiased practice was unfair to the blacks and Hispanics applying because they are more likely to have a criminal record, therefore a race-neutral practice is actually a form of race discrimination. There has got to be more to it than that. Literally every job I've ever had has done a background check. I think the main problem was that if you had a record they wouldnt hire you even if it was unrelated or not a threat to the job. --- Water+Fall=Radiation. <cite>Mistere Man posted [p:899545699] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>M_Live posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Note: It runs a criminal background check on ALL applicants, regardless of race. This lawsuit claims that this unbiased practice was unfair to the blacks and Hispanics applying because they are more likely to have a criminal record, therefore a race-neutral practice is actually a form of race discrimination.</quote> There has got to be more to it than that. Literally every job I've ever had has done a background check.</quote> I think the main problem was that if you had a record they wouldnt hire you even if it was unrelated or not a threat to the job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rika_Furude 04/12/18 5:35:17 PM #71:	Balrog0 posted... Rika_Furude posted... What are you asking? What are you basing that, 'Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.' as a legal standard? I mean I am sure that is true because it is so widespread. But what makes you think so? My assumption here is that background checks probably can't be as broad as people assume they can be without running into anti-discrimination laws but I don't know. Also if you are not American then I guess it would be interesting to know how your country handles this but it wouldnt necessarily apply here The high rate of reoffenders for one. If someone has committed a crime, they are likely to commit the same crime again, or a similar crime. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>Rika_Furude posted [p:899545794] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote> What are you asking? </quote> What are you basing that, 'Background checks do in fact accurately predict responsible, safe employees.' as a legal standard? I mean I am sure that is true because it is so widespread. But what makes you think so? My assumption here is that background checks probably can't be as broad as people assume they can be without running into anti-discrimination laws but I don't know. Also if you are not American then I guess it would be interesting to know how your country handles this but it wouldnt necessarily apply here</quote> The high rate of reoffenders for one. If someone has committed a crime, they are likely to commit the same crime again, or a similar crime.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gmanthebest 04/12/18 5:44:56 PM #72:	shockthemonkey posted... gmanthebest posted... Balrog0 posted... like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right?? Good PR. Plus, it would probably cost them more going through the court. ...you think its good PR to pay out on a discrimination suit like this?! "We apologize to any and all parties affected by our previous practices. We will take steps to address any issues going forward, and hope we can find a solution." Sometimes you gotta say sorry, even if you shouldn't. --- What do I feel when I shoot an enemy? Recoil. <cite>gmanthebest posted [p:899546408] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gmanthebest posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>like clearly they didn't settle for no reason right??</quote> Good PR. Plus, it would probably cost them more going through the court.</quote> ...you think its good PR to pay out on a discrimination suit like this?!</quote> "We apologize to any and all parties affected by our previous practices. We will take steps to address any issues going forward, and hope we can find a solution." Sometimes you gotta say sorry, even if you shouldn't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
awesome999 04/12/18 5:55:56 PM #73:	Background checks should absolutely be allowed, nobody should be punished for not wanting criminals in their company So what if there are racial undertones, as long as the process is applied fairly to all races, I see no problem --- When it's kids, it's "bullying" but if it were adults, it's stalking, harassment, assault, criminal threats and just general abuse. -Tmk <cite>awesome999 posted [p:899547101] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>Background checks should absolutely be allowed, nobody should be punished for not wanting criminals in their company So what if there are racial undertones, as long as the process is applied fairly to all races, I see no problem</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#74	Post #74 was unavailable or deleted.
_OujiDoza_ 04/12/18 6:06:21 PM #75:	Ah, the usual suspects hard at work... --- R.I.P. Bilbo-Swaggins: Victim of the CommunistFAQS Regime \|Brian-Dawkins\|http://i.imgtc.com/5yil6xS.jpg. <cite>_OujiDoza_ posted [p:899547730] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>Ah, the usual suspects hard at work...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/12/18 6:07:17 PM #76:	_OujiDoza_ posted... Ah, the usual suspects hard at work... You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you? --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899547794] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>_OujiDoza_ posted...</cite> <quote>Ah, the usual suspects hard at work...</quote> You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_OujiDoza_ 04/12/18 6:10:41 PM #77:	The Admiral posted... _OujiDoza_ posted... Ah, the usual suspects hard at work... You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you? I have no narrative though, which is ironic coming from you... I actually think this lawsuit would have been thrown out had target stuck with it, it's weird they caved, unless... They may actually be guilty of something and want to avoid anyone digging deeper. But yeah, you do continue floating around your beloved "black stats" we need you to stay consistent. --- R.I.P. Bilbo-Swaggins: Victim of the CommunistFAQS Regime \|Brian-Dawkins\|http://i.imgtc.com/5yil6xS.jpg. <cite>_OujiDoza_ posted [p:899547996] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_OujiDoza_ posted...</cite> <quote>Ah, the usual suspects hard at work...</quote> You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you?</quote> I have no narrative though, which is ironic coming from you... I actually think this lawsuit would have been thrown out had target stuck with it, it's weird they caved, unless... They may actually be guilty of something and want to avoid anyone digging deeper. But yeah, you do continue floating around your beloved "black stats" we need you to stay consistent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/12/18 6:23:47 PM #78:	FrisbeeDude posted... https://www.theroot.com/target-agrees-to-3-74-million-settlement-after-being-a-1825178699/amp?__twitter_impression=true Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Shocker, but then again, when we bring this type of stuff up we are accused of pushing a victim narrative. The real issue are pro equality signs on PWIs It literally is a victim narrative. Like, seriously - you're pissed off that criminals can't pass a background check to get a job. "I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, that we didn't initially hire you because you were convicted of multiple counts of rape and murder. I will change my racist ways!" --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899548790] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.theroot.com/target-agrees-to-3-74-million-settlement-after-being-a-1825178699/amp?__twitter_impression=true Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Shocker, but then again, when we bring this type of stuff up we are accused of pushing a victim narrative. The real issue are pro equality signs on PWIs </quote> It literally is a victim narrative. Like, seriously - you're pissed off that criminals can't pass a background check to get a job. "I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, that we didn't initially hire you because you were convicted of multiple counts of rape and murder. I will change my racist ways!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#79	Post #79 was unavailable or deleted.
Slip-N-Slide 04/12/18 7:09:33 PM #80:	So I guess you could say they were a Target. ~~I'll be here all week~~ --- Get wet. http://i.imgtc.com/2q3z3TmhFO.jpg <cite>Slip-N-Slide posted [p:899551295] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>So I guess you could say they were a Target. I'll be here all week</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 04/12/18 7:11:47 PM #81:	_OujiDoza_ posted... The Admiral posted... _OujiDoza_ posted... Ah, the usual suspects hard at work... You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you? I have no narrative though, which is ironic coming from you... I actually think this lawsuit would have been thrown out had target stuck with it, it's weird they caved, unless... They may actually be guilty of something and want to avoid anyone digging deeper. But yeah, you do continue floating around your beloved "black stats" we need you to stay consistent. This is why you never settle, even if it's cheaper, because ppl like ouji will just assume you're just guilty and trying to hide it. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:899551415] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>_OujiDoza_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_OujiDoza_ posted...</cite> <quote>Ah, the usual suspects hard at work...</quote> You'd love CE much more if people weren't here to use facts to shoot down your narrative, wouldn't you?</quote> I have no narrative though, which is ironic coming from you... I actually think this lawsuit would have been thrown out had target stuck with it, it's weird they caved, unless... They may actually be guilty of something and want to avoid anyone digging deeper. But yeah, you do continue floating around your beloved "black stats" we need you to stay consistent.</quote> This is why you never settle, even if it's cheaper, because ppl like ouji will just assume you're just guilty and trying to hide it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 04/12/18 7:15:34 PM #82:	darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... https://www.theroot.com/target-agrees-to-3-74-million-settlement-after-being-a-1825178699/amp?__twitter_impression=true Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Shocker, but then again, when we bring this type of stuff up we are accused of pushing a victim narrative. The real issue are pro equality signs on PWIs It literally is a victim narrative. Like, seriously - you're pissed off that criminals can't pass a background check to get a job. "I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, that we didn't initially hire you because you were convicted of multiple counts of rape and murder. I will change my racist ways!" It's expecting Target and other to clean up the government's failures. Liberals want the government more and more involved in their lives and to give up more of their liberties in exchange for government assistance and protection. The government fails spectacularly, creates shitty public schools, failed housing projects and welfare programs, this leads to more crime. Naturally, companies don't want to hire people with criminal backgrounds and the liberals bitch that it's the fault of the companies and that they're being racist. And how do they respond? "More government involvement please!!!" --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:899551619] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.theroot.com/target-agrees-to-3-74-million-settlement-after-being-a-1825178699/amp?__twitter_impression=true Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Target Corp. is dishing out a hefty $3.74 million to settle a lawsuit in which it is accused of using criminal-background checks to keep thousands of black and/or Hispanic people from getting jobs. As part of the agreement, the retail giant has also agreed to review its policies for screening applicants, Reuters reports. Shocker, but then again, when we bring this type of stuff up we are accused of pushing a victim narrative. The real issue are pro equality signs on PWIs </quote> It literally is a victim narrative. Like, seriously - you're pissed off that criminals can't pass a background check to get a job. "I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, that we didn't initially hire you because you were convicted of multiple counts of rape and murder. I will change my racist ways!"</quote> It's expecting Target and other to clean up the government's failures. Liberals want the government more and more involved in their lives and to give up more of their liberties in exchange for government assistance and protection. The government fails spectacularly, creates shitty public schools, failed housing projects and welfare programs, this leads to more crime. Naturally, companies don't want to hire people with criminal backgrounds and the liberals bitch that it's the fault of the companies and that they're being racist. And how do they respond? "More government involvement please!!!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/12/18 7:23:02 PM #83:	FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899552020] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 04/12/18 7:24:08 PM #84:	The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:899552084] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/12/18 7:25:30 PM #85:	FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899552177] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 04/12/18 7:28:19 PM #86:	UnfairRepresent posted... Wait so who are they paying it out to? Who gets the money? The Reuters link the tc's link links to explains. It's mostly legal fees, with some going to people who lost their jobs for supposedly illegal/discriminatory practices I think it mentions they were fired for crimes committed decades ago and unrelated to their positions Am I really the only one who clicks links any more? I think maybe I spend too much effort on this site --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:899552348] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Wait so who are they paying it out to? Who gets the money?</quote> The Reuters link the tc's link links to explains. It's mostly legal fees, with some going to people who lost their jobs for supposedly illegal/discriminatory practices I think it mentions they were fired for crimes committed decades ago and unrelated to their positions Am I really the only one who clicks links any more? I think maybe I spend too much effort on this site</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/12/18 7:29:40 PM #87:	FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC How is that not a totally accurate statement? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899552424] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> How is that not a totally accurate statement?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 04/12/18 7:47:33 PM #88:	The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately. That's the coors light getting to you --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:899553404] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately.</quote> That's the coors light getting to you</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/12/18 7:50:32 PM #89:	FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately. That's the coors light getting to you You probably drink beer so cheap that all it says on the can is "beer." --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899553584] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately.</quote> That's the coors light getting to you</quote> You probably drink beer so cheap that all it says on the can is "beer."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 04/12/18 7:52:11 PM #90:	The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:899553688] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/12/18 7:54:53 PM #91:	sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899553864] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 04/12/18 7:57:16 PM #92:	darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. Businesses should only be able to not hire people for saying something politically incorrect on social media. But committing crimes isn't actually a big deal. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:899554008] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> Businesses should only be able to not hire people for saying something politically incorrect on social media. But committing crimes isn't actually a big deal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 04/12/18 8:01:15 PM #93:	The Admiral posted... Apparently its now racist to ask if applicants are criminals when some groups commit crimes at much higher rates. But they run background checks on everyone so why are you arguing that they do discriminate? Enough with your weird ass racial profiling fanboyism --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:899554230] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Apparently its now racist to ask if applicants are criminals when some groups commit crimes at much higher rates.</quote> But they run background checks on everyone so why are you arguing that they do discriminate? Enough with your weird ass racial profiling fanboyism</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 04/12/18 8:02:50 PM #94:	darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. And if no one hired former criminals... then what do we do with the criminals? Oh, I know... keep throwing them in jail and creating a cycle that only serves to create more victims and cost us more money. The fact of the matter is that people do commit crimes and they do get released. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:899554312] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> And if no one hired former criminals... then what do we do with the criminals? Oh, I know... keep throwing them in jail and creating a cycle that only serves to create more victims and cost us more money. The fact of the matter is that people do commit crimes and they do get released.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 04/12/18 8:05:27 PM #95:	darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude posted... The Admiral posted... FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals." Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately. That's the coors light getting to you You probably drink beer so cheap that all it says on the can is "beer." Nah, fam. Untappd squad stand up --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:899554462] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>FrisbeeDude: "It's racist to say that black people are more likely to be criminals." Also FrisbeeDude: "Background checks are racist because black people are more likely to be criminals."</quote> Swing and a miss for our resident former mod. Go back to complaining about sign at USC</quote> Nah, got you nailed pretty accurately.</quote> That's the coors light getting to you</quote> You probably drink beer so cheap that all it says on the can is "beer."</quote> Nah, fam. Untappd squad stand up</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 04/12/18 8:06:55 PM #96:	hockeybub89 posted... darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. And if no one hired former criminals... then what do we do with the criminals? Oh, I know... keep throwing them in jail and creating a cycle that only serves to create more victims and cost us more money. The fact of the matter is that people do commit crimes and they do get released. You and your ilk literally salivate at the opportunity to get people fired for making sexist or racist jokes on facebook. You're in no position to be upset about someone not being hired for having actually committed a crime. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:899554537] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> And if no one hired former criminals... then what do we do with the criminals? Oh, I know... keep throwing them in jail and creating a cycle that only serves to create more victims and cost us more money. The fact of the matter is that people do commit crimes and they do get released.</quote> You and your ilk literally salivate at the opportunity to get people fired for making sexist or racist jokes on facebook. You're in no position to be upset about someone not being hired for having actually committed a crime.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 04/12/18 8:07:22 PM #97:	darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too... Edit: we literally have more sympathy for the entitled coal miner who refuses to switch jobs over ex-cons trying to go straight and being denied the chance. That shit is wild --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:899554560] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too... Edit: we literally have more sympathy for the entitled coal miner who refuses to switch jobs over ex-cons trying to go straight and being denied the chance. That shit is wild</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 04/12/18 8:24:02 PM #98:	How did this actually work, lmao <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:899555393] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>How did this actually work, lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gmanthebest 04/12/18 9:43:18 PM #99:	FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too... Are you fucking serious? There's a pretty big difference between choosing to be a coal miner and choosing to steal shit. --- What do I feel when I shoot an enemy? Recoil. <cite>gmanthebest posted [p:899559670] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too...</quote> Are you fucking serious? There's a pretty big difference between choosing to be a coal miner and choosing to steal shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/12/18 9:43:23 PM #100:	FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs! Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about. "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too... Edit: we literally have more sympathy for the entitled coal miner who refuses to switch jobs over ex-cons trying to go straight and being denied the chance. That shit is wild Why should I have sympathy for a criminal? And why do you think I have sympathy for a coal miner? They both made their choices, and have to live with the consequences. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899559676] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>The right: these people should get a job! Bootstraps! Also the right: criminals cant get jobs!</quote> Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they wish. If people didn't commit crimes, they'd have nothing to worry about.</quote> "Timmy should've never fallen down the well in the first place" If coal miners just got different jobs, they'd have nothing to worry about too... Edit: we literally have more sympathy for the entitled coal miner who refuses to switch jobs over ex-cons trying to go straight and being denied the chance. That shit is wild</quote> Why should I have sympathy for a criminal? And why do you think I have sympathy for a coal miner? They both made their choices, and have to live with the consequences.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nomadic View 04/12/18 9:51:24 PM #101:	Not hiring criminals....is racist?! My God does the left have any standards at all for PoC? --- {}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{} {}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;> <cite>Nomadic View posted [p:899560114] in Target to ... [t:76510702]...</cite> <quote>Not hiring criminals....is racist?! My God does the left have any standards at all for PoC?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Target to pay 3.74 million for discrimination against blacks and Hispanics (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Target to pay 3.74 million for discrimination against blacks and Hispanics