"Target Guilty of Age Discrimination"

This isn't really 'new' news for those working for Target, it has been around for several years and in the media now and then. It has been reported several times on this blog and in fact I set up a seperate blog site with information on Target's age discrimination in Tucson. 

If  you are a long serving Target employee and think that you will be able to 'retire' at Target, you probably won't and you will be considered a 'blocker' and set up to be fired. 

It is clearly Target Corporation policy to dump long serving employees to save money on wages and benefits and instead hire new employees at far less money. Unfortunately this sort of policy is not exclusive to Target but is found with other retail firms, Target as the 2nd largest retail chain just does a better job of it.  You better take a look at what happens to those Target employees who have put in years of work and how Target treats their long serving employees.

The Tucson case is referenced in the very first post on the www.Topix.com blog dealing with this sort of discrimination. The topix message board site was set up 8/9/10 and has posts as recent as 4/22/12 with 108 comments. Here is the direct link FYI:

Also the direct link to my blog reporting on the Tucson case, Lavonne C. Beckford v. Target Corporation at  http://beckfordvtarget.blogspot.com/
The Tucson blog summarizes a very interesting case in Arizona Federal Court where Target Corporation was accused by Plaintiff Beckford of systematically firing long service Target employees in order to save money by employing new hires.
If you have additional time to do reading about Target you might take a look at these sites:



Monday, January 16, 2012

Anyone Remember this case?

Target Corp. v. Doe

NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.