Target Court cases and Confidential Information:

Marjorie Ann Diaz v. Target Corporation
Direct click on link:  http://diaz-target.blogspot.com/
Plaintiff Diaz filed a class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Ms Diaz was an hourly non-exempt employee of Target in Irvine, California, from approximately October 2000 until May 2009. The Plaintiff sues on the following causes:
(1) failure to provide meal periods under California Labor Code § 226.7;
(2) failure to provide rest periods,
(3) failure to timely pay wages due at termination,
(4) failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions,
(5) failure to pay overtime compensation,
(6) failure to reimburse expenses,
(7) penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act,
(8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code,
(9) violations of the Unfair Practices Act under California Business & Professions Code

Target 17 page Corrective Action Guidelines and Target AP Directives  44 pages
http://targetguidelines.blogspot.com/
The Corrective Guidelines document deals with Gross Misconduct, Serious Offenses, Minor Offenses, coaching and the steps necessary to discipline or fire an employee and it defines all the relevant terms. The AP Directives is the 2006 'Security Manual', revisions have been made since it was published.

Beckford v. Target Corp.
http://beckfordvtarget.blogspot.com/
Long time employees at Tucson Target store sue for being fired for trumped up reasons and replaced by much lower paid new hires.

An Arizona case that started out in a local court and was transferred to Federal Court. A former manager said: "It was understood that I could hire someone 10 years younger than these people, at half the pay, and they had college degrees. I'd sit during the management meetings, and we'd identify who is a 'blocker'—which meant they needed to leave the company . . . "We were told to figure out how to get rid of these blockers that cost too much money,"

‘Target AP Directives’ 42 pages
http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com/
Another copy of said Directives with 2 versions, first is useful to 'cut and paste' sections for quoting, 2nd is original as supplied by ex-Target employee

Target Corp v. John Doe, case summary
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/target-corp-v-doe   A summary of the 23 month Atlanta Federal Court case where Target tried to force the removal of the Target AP Directives and collect damages.  The case was subsequently thrown out of court.

Target filed a lawsuit against an initially unknown Internet user with the handle “Target Sucks” for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets for allegedly posting information on various retail-employee forums and blogs. Target subsequently identified the user based on the information it received after subpoening Internet providers. Defendant allegedly posted Target’s "Asset Protection Directives," an in-house theft prevention manual, on several websites critical of Target. Target asserted in its two-count complaint that the user “acquired a copy of Target’s AP Directives from a recently terminated Target employee, Scott Hundt.”