Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
K & J Management Inc. v. Kyles
No. 98L 012726 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook County filed Nov. 14, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52259
Description
Management Firm Sues Employment Testers for Fraud
Abstract
Plaintiff management firm filed suit alleging that testers employed
by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAFC) committed
fraud by applying for a job in which they had no genuine interest
and that LAFC wrongfully financed the federal lawsuit brought by
testers. Testers—two African American women—applied and
interviewed for a receptionist position with a security services
firm managed by plaintiff. When firm did not offer either tester a
job, testers sued firm for racially discriminatory hiring practices
(see Kyles v. J.K. Guardian Security Servs. Inc., Clearinghouse No.
52,258). LAFC, which had been assigned all damages by the testers,
financed the lawsuit. In its complaint plaintiff argues that LAFC
hired testers to pose as job seekers for purposes of manufacturing
a basis for a racial discrimination lawsuit against an employer.
Plaintiff alleges that testers’ statements when they applied
that they were interested in the advertised position and that they
could begin work as soon as possible were false and untrue. Testers
did not have the characteristics and qualifications described in
their résumés and employment applications. Plaintiff
argues that, , in reliance on testers’ false statements, it
wasted time and resources interviewing, screening, and processing
their applications. Firm also suffered damage to its goodwill and
reputation by having to defend testers’ lawsuit. Plaintiff
alleges that, because LAFC had no interest in testers’ suit
but financed it in consideration for receiving damages if
successful, the agreement between testers and LAFC is champertous
and against public policy. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.
