Case Synopsis

Case Synopsis
Student’s First Name, Middle Initial (s), Last Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name and Title
Assignment Due Date
Case Synopsis
The corporate sector has emerged to accommodate diverse practices that call for regulation. In a business environment, hiring and work practices have turned to engage in discrimination practices. Employers in the corporate world need to understand and know the rules that govern discrimination to avoid such malpractices. The federal law, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, restrain employers from discrimination based on factors such as sex, disability, race, religion, age, and national origin. Discrimination practices in courts are heard, and a verdict is made based on the quality of evidence gathered. The paper examines a case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Target Corporation relating to discrimination and highlights the ethical issues raised, stakeholders and their stances, and the course of action to the problem.
Ethical Issues
The Target Corporation engaged in discrimination basing on the applicant’s race. Kalisha White does an experiment that exposes the malpractices at Target, which employs bias during the hiring process (Porter, 2021). Kalisha makes a fictitious person with a white-race name (Sarah Brucker) and Brookfield, Wisconsin address. The choice of the address was perfect for the experiment because it was located in a Caucasian environment. Armiger, the recruiter for the executive target leader position, disregard White's original resume indicating her African-American association. She goes ahead to schedule an interview with the fictitious person who bears a white-race identity (Bohonos, 2021). The main dominant ethical issue related to the case is discrimination against employees and applicants basing on race.
Another ethical issue revealed in the article relates to a violation of the civil rights of the black workers. The federal law advocates for equal employment in the corporate landscape, but Target Corporation fails to adhere to the laws. Black workers, just like their white counterparts, should be treated fairly and equally. The employment and hiring process in business firms should be structured to make recruitment based on merit and performance rather than discriminatory (Whysall, 2018). The choice of applicants’ names in pairs of black and white names portrays the discrimination practices and violation of equal employment opportunity laws (Dante'S, 2021). Purposefully pairing a black and white candidate gives room for considering a white candidate and ignoring the black candidate irrespective of the diverse characteristics and qualities.
Unprofessional hiring concerning the job description requirements. In this case, the fictitious person did not meet the requirements of the job being applied but secured an interview with Armiger. In the original application of Kalisha White, the application details indicated that White pursued an MBA degree, a requirement for the executive target position. The fictitious applicant, Sarah Brucker, did not pursue an MBA degree in her application details but secured an interview with Armiger (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2007). This indicates that the organization did not focus on the job requirements. Kalisha’s resume portrayed more important qualification requirements than the fictitious applicant Sarah. Since the recruiter was unethical, he decides to interview the less qualified candidate rather than focus on the more qualified applicant.
Stakeholders in the Case
The case involves various stakeholders. It involves Target Corporation, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other black applicants. The Commission filed a lawsuit on behalf of Kalisha White and the other black applicants (Porter, 2021). The Commission thus becomes the plaintiff-appellant in the case. Target Corporation is one whom a lawsuit has been filed against; this becomes a defendant-appellee. The case was brought before the court of appeal, the seventh circuit. Other individuals who had a similar case of discrimination are Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley. The exact Target Corporation hiring process conducted by recruiter Armiger shows that discrimination was at a higher rate on applicants of African-American origin (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2007). Target Corporation, through Armiger, defends itself against claims posed by EEOC.
Stakeholders’ Stances
EEOC files a case against Target on claims brought out by Kalisha White regarding disc...