Kyles v. J.K. Guardian Sec. Servs. Inc.

No. 97-08311 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2000); 98-3652 (7th Cir. July 5, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52258

Description

Testers Challenging Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practices Appeal District Court’s Finding That They Lack Standing

Abstract

Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this challenge to the racially discriminatory hiring practices of defendant security services firm. Plaintiffs—two African American testers employed by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago—applied and interviewed for a receptionist position with defendant. When defendant failed to offer either plaintiff a job, plaintiffs assigned their rights to any monetary damages to the Legal Assistance Foundation and sued for racially discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Finding that plaintiffs alleged no concrete and personal injury by not being offered a job they neither wanted nor intended to accept, the district court held that they lacked standing. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that testing has a long and distinguished history as a method of civil rights enforcement. They argue that the district court incorrectly analyzed the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III standing; both the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit find that plaintiffs in housing cases who have no intent to follow through on their applications to rent or buy homes have standing under Article III. Plaintiffs contend that the district court’s belief that Title VII provides relief only to "bona fide" job applicants is mistaken. They assert that Title VII is a remedial statute grounded in important public policies and should be broadly construed and that the limitation to "bona fide" applicants is at odds with relevant statutory language. Further, Title VII was amended in 1991 to correct comparably restrictive limitations on the broad relief Congress intended. Recent employment discrimination decisions support tester standing, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with the enforcement of Title VII, has determined that employment testers have standing. The standing of housing testers, recognized for 25 years, supports tester standing in employment. Plaintiffs argue that they are suffering compensable injuries directly traceable to defendant’s discriminatory treatment. They also argue that they have standing under Section 1981.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff-appellants represented by Timothy Huizenga, Diana C. White, Maureen E. Terjak, Heather Ross, Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604; 312.347.8317.
Docket Date
2000-07-05 00:00:00+00:00