The EEOC says three employment assessments formerly used by the Minneapolis-based retailer disproportionately screened out applicants for professional positions based on race and gender. It says the tests were not sufficiently job-related. The EEOC also says an assessment that was performed by psychologists violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from subjecting applicants to medical exams prior making a job offer.
Query: (1) Does Target undertake such actions without seeking legal advice or (2) Did Target get bad legal advice or (3) Are employment laws unpredictable and hard to follow or (4) Are employment laws rarely enforced so it is more profitable to break them and get caught from time to time than to follow them?
I am tempted to speculate as to which alternative explanation applies but this is one time where I will resist.