The test in question, administered between 1987 and 1991 to applicants for store security positions in Target stores in California, consisted of true/false questions pertaining to applicants' sexual practices and religious beliefs. Applicants were required to respond to statements such as: "I have never indulged in unusual sex practices;" "I believe my sins are unpardonable;" and "I feel sure there is only one true religion."
"The settlement is a complete vindication of the privacy rights of job applicants," says Brad Seligman, the plaintiffs' attorney. "Our goal was to stop the testing. ... This settlement sends a strong message to other employers that they cannot trample upon the constitutionally protected privacy rights of applicants and employees."
The settlement will go into a fund for security officer applicants who took the Rodgers Condensed CPI-MMPI test. The class action lawsuit represented approximately 2,500 job seekers. Each class member is expected to receive at least $500 for having to take the test. Target will also pay $60,000 to be divided between the four named plaintiffs in the case.
The settlement requires Target to destroy all records of test results on a specified schedule and to run a direct mail and newspaper advertising program to notify class members about the settlement. Target spokesperson Robert Sykes says, "We hope that the establishment of a fund will help address the concerns of those candidates to whom the test was administered."
Target officials claim the test was used to assess the emotional fitness of security officer applicants. A Target statement says that the testing was fully confidential and conducted by an independent psychological consulting firm.
"It is a basic tenet of responsible journalism that the views of advertisers should not influence editorial content," 11 professors and critics wrote to Times Executive Editor Max Frankel. "Nor should editors beat the drum to ingratiate themselves to advertisers. Nor should a newspaper discriminate against advertisers simply because the paper disagrees with their viewpoint. The New York Times violates all three principles with its special advertising sections on NAFTA."
The critics' letter was written in response to an April promotional letter that New York Times sales manager Eve Kummel sent to potential advertisers. "While we agree that this accord is of critical importance to the future economic growth of Mexico, Canada and the United States, many Americans require further understanding if they are to be supportive of free trade and anti-protectionism," Kummel wrote. "In an effort to educate the public and influence Washington decision makers, the New York Times has planned a series of three special advertorials presenting the positive economic and social benefits of NAFTA."
The journalism professors, including Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the Journalism School at the University of California at Berkeley, say that the Times refused to sell space in the advertorial sections to opponents of NAFTA, including the AFL-CIO. "By limiting expression on a contentious public policy issue to one side, the newspaper flouts the ideal of a free forum of debate," they wrote to Frankel. "It is doubly unfortunate that the side excluded is the one with less money and generally less opportunity to have its views heard in regular news coverage."
The 24 landowners charged that Combustion Engineering polluted creeks and streams near Lincolnton, Georgia, causing extensive environmental property damage. The landowners' lawsuit charged that the company's kyanite mining practices left ore deposits and other mining materials open and exposed, causing acidic pollution to flow downstream when it rained. Polluted streams running off the mountain have contaminated 1,134 acres of land, according to the lawsuit.
William Pannell, the plaintiffs' attorney, describes the damage: "If you look at an aerial picture of the mountain it looks like a big cancerous boil. ... What they've created by leaving all that exposed and not sealing it off from oxygen is a giant sulfuric acid factory."
Pannell says, "The streams are polluted and some have dead trees and dead vegetation. They are acidic, and the normal aquatic life that you would find in a stream is just not present."
The jury decision represents the largest punitive damage award for environmental property damage in Georgia history. The jury also awarded the landowners $47,000 in compensatory damages and $227,000 in attorneys fees.
"The award of punitive damages is grossly disproportionate with the harm the jury found in the way of actual damages," says a Combustion spokesperson. "Combustion Engineering will appeal the award and pursue whatever other legal rights it has in the matter."
-Ben Lilliston