Racial Testers Present False Credentials to Trap YOU into a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination

Adversity.Net, Inc. - For Victims of Reverse Discrimination
Site Index / Menu.

         Your federal government funds racial testers -- fake job applicants and fake housing applicants --  (with your tax dollars) to entrap you in a discrimination law suit!  These undercover agents arrive at your doorstep with falsified credentials and resumes.  They have no intention of accepting your job or your housing vacancy, and they are clearly guilty of deception and fraud.  See News, below

BACK:  Legal News MAIN Page
Legal News MAIN Page

          Justice Prevails!  On Friday, Sept. 15, 2000 a Federal Jury in Chicago ruled that bogus "racial testers" -- who presented falsified resumes to JK Guardian Security Services -- did NOT prove "racial bias" simply because Guardian did not hire them!

          Previously, a federal appeals court had upheld the lawsuit filed by two federally-funded "racial testers" in Chicago.  This in spite of a lower court ruling in which the judge determined that the racial testers had no legal standing and suffered no harm or discrimination since the testers clearly never intended to accept the position which was offered.

          These racial provocateurs were hired by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAFC).  The LAFC is a federally-funded non-profit organization that used your tax dollars to foist a dubious, case of "created discrimination" on law-abiding business people. 


(Reverse Chronology:  Recent Stories Appear First)

Illinois (Chicago):
Bogus Racial Testers LOSE Chicago Lawsuit (09/18/00)

CHICAGO (AP) — "Two women who applied for jobs to test whether a security firm discriminated against minorities have lost their lawsuit, a key federal case that asked whether it's legal to lie to an employer in an effort to document wrongdoing.

          "JK Guardian Security Services did not engage in biased hiring practices by denying employment to the two black applicants who were paid representatives of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, a jury decided Friday.

          "As the first case of this kind ever to go to trial, the jury sent a clear message that claims of discrimination will need more than just the fact that African-Americans did not receive job offers," said Douglas Drach, an attorney representing JK Guardian.

          "[Racial] Testing opponents say one or two visits to an employer are insufficient to prove bias.

          In the case, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, which receives most of its funding from pro-minority federal agencies, paid Kyra Kyles and Lolita Pierce, both of whom are minorities, to apply for a receptionist job at Guardian using falsified resumes and credentials.  Neither of Kyles nor Pierce had any intention of accepting the job if offered.  Guardian subsequently hired a non-minority for the job, and the Legal Assistance Foundation sued claiming racial bias.  Neither the Legal Assistance Foundation nor the individual plaintiffs (Kyles and Pierce) offered any testimony or other concrete evidence that Guardian had in place a policy racial discrimination.

          "[Initially] U.S. District Judge Suzanne Conlon threw out the lawsuit, saying the testers had no standing to sue because they didn't want the job for which they had applied.

          "But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision and sent the case back for trial. The appellate court ruled civil rights workers who apply for jobs to test whether employers discriminate against minorities in hiring may sue those who show bias."

          But on Friday, September 15, 2000 the Chicago Jury determined that Guardian was not guilty of racial bias.  (Associated Press via Court TV Online 09/18/00.  See also Fox News.)
[Link http://www.courttv.com/national/2000/0919/bias_ap.html ]
[Alternate Link:  http://www.foxnews.com/national/0918/d_ap_0918_181.sml ]


Illinois (Chicago):
Federal appeals court upholds use of testers in civil rights lawsuits (07/06/00)

(AP via FoxNews)  "Civil rights workers who apply for jobs to test whether employers discriminate against minorities in hiring may sue those who show bias, an appeals court has ruled.

          "The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a lower-court decision that threw out such a lawsuit on grounds that two such testers had no standing to sue because they didn't want the job for which they applied.

          "The appeals court said testers have standing to sue under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the provision that outlaws hiring discrimination based on race.  "We find no support in Title VII for a requirement that a job applicant must have a bona fide interest in working for a particular employer if she is to make out a ... case of employment discrimination,'' a three-judge panel said.

          "The opinion sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Suzanne B. Conlon for trial.

          "Conlon had held that civil rights testers Kyra Kyles and Lolita Pierce had no standing to sue J.K. Guardian Security Services Inc. over allegations that it had discriminated against them because they were black. She held that, because the women didn't really want the receptionist job for which they applied, no genuine legal interest of theirs was violated even if the company had discriminated against them.

          "The women claimed that, during a 1995 race-bias sting coordinated by the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, they applied for a receptionist job at Guardian and were told selected applicants would be called later for second interviews. A white tester with similar credentials was immediately tested, interviewed and offered the job, they said."  (AP via FoxNews 07/06/00)
[link http://www.foxnews.com/national/0706/d_ap_0706_35.sml ]

Who IS the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago?  (Posted 07/07/00)

          The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAFC) is a federally-funded, non-for-profit foundation which uses your tax dollars to send bogus "racial pairs" to your company or housing office.   These "testers" are federally-funded undercover agents whose purpose is to entrap you into a prima facie case of discrimination.

          If you are so unfortunate as to hire, or grant a lease to, the "white" tester, then you are automatically accused of racial discrimination, and the considerable weight of the U.S. Department of Justice will descend upon you.  But if you choose to "reverse discriminate" and hire (or lease to) the "minority" tester, you will avoid lengthy and expensive federal harassment.

          As of July 7, 2000 the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAFC) web site says the following:

          "LAFC is the federally-funded legal services program in Chicago. ... The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, (LAFC), a not-for-profit corporation"

          "The cost of litigation in many cases can be very high, particularly in cases requiring extensive discovery.  Some legal services programs have little or no money to meet these costs, and cases must be refused because there is no way to finance them.   This is not the case with LAFC.  There is [plenty of federal] money available to meet discovery and other related costs.  ... the money is there when lawyers need it for depositions, other discovery costs, expert witnesses, etc."

          "LAFC attorneys represent tenants, not their landlords or real estate developers. [LAFC represents] the victims of race or handicap discrimination in employment, not their employers."

          "For many years the employees of LAFC have been unionized; they are represented by the United Legal Workers of Chicago."

          "LAFC also has a very strong commitment to increase the number of minority attorneys working with the program, and we especially encourage minority third-year law students and law school graduates to apply for a position with us."

          You can contact the LAFC / Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago at the following address:

          Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago
          111 W. Jackson, Third Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          (312) 341-1070
          (312) 431-1206 (TDD)

          LAFC Web Site:  http://www.lafchicago.org/

Illinois (Chicago):
Racial 'Testers' Do NOT Have Legal Standing!  (dead link)

(See especially the related article, below:  EEOC attempts to justify its deception.)

          The EEOC has contracted with dozens of "racial testers" around the country whose mission is to apply for jobs the applicants do not intend to accept if offered!  The sub-text is that EEOC spends lots of YOUR tax dollars hiring pairs of "minority and non-minority" job applicants to apply for jobs which they have no intention of accepting if offered.  If the "non-minority" is hired, according to the EEOC's perverted logic, they mistakenly believe they have established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.  

          U.S. District Judge Suzanne Conlon says NO!  The Judge ruled that these mercenary civil rights activists the EEOC hired "allege an injury of not receiving an offer for a job they (the testers) neither wanted nor intended to accept."  This case is one of dozens in which the EEOC's dishonest, deceptive, flawed "racial tester" program has been rebuffed by the courts.  (California Law, callaw.com, 9/30/98)
[ former link *http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0930d.html]

Related Racial Testing Stories:

Dubious 'racial tester' study alleges discrimination in Bay Area (07/29/99)
          "... [T]he validity of the year long study, which was sponsored by civil rights groups and foundations in the Bay Area, was questioned by some social scientists and employment industry officials. The research relied on a controversial technique known as "matched-pair" testing.

          "Researchers examined the employment agencies' hiring practices by sending, without the agencies' knowledge, pairs of black and white "testers" posing as job applicants for entry-level office positions. In each of the 45 cases included in the study, the testers' job qualifications were essentially identical, with the main difference between them being race.

          "One of the reasons that matched-pair studies such as the Impact Fund's are controversial is the difficulty in determining which testers truly have equal qualifications.

          "Despite training provided to the testers, 'it's difficult to make two different people have the same interview skills,' said Paul F. White, a labor economist with Economic Research Services, a Tallahassee, Fla., firm that provides consulting services and expert court testimony for companies accused of workplace discrimination.

          "Also, because of their high cost, matched-pair research typically involves a relatively small number of tests.   In the Bay Area study, 'you've only got 45 tests.  It's hard to make definitive conclusions about the whole [employment agency] industry based on these examples,' White said."

          In spite of these limitations, the racial and ethnic minority groups who sponsored the study claimed:  "Whites are three times more likely than equally qualified blacks to get preferential treatment when applying for jobs through employment agencies, often landing higher-paying jobs or receiving offers more quickly..."  (Quoted from LA Times story 07/29/99 by Stuart Silverstein)
[link http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000067370.html ]

Clinton Endorses Racial Testing, Gov't Collection of 'Anecdotal Stories' about Bigotry   (02/03/99 - dead link)
          Clinton's federal budget includes $10 million to be dispersed to various federal agencies in order to further study what bigotry does to peoples lives. One official said "That's kind of like spending $10 million to find out why children fall off bicycles."

          Christopher Edley, a black Harvard University law professor who is advising Clinton on racial issues, said "federal agencies have already begun looking at how they can incorporate the practice of "testing'' — that is, sending out teams of people who are evenly matched in virtually every aspect except their race and cataloging the reactions they get when they seek a job or a home."  (Various sources, see links.)
[former link **http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/0202/n_ap_0202_15.sml]
[and also former link:  *http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/034/nation/

Chicago Business Sues 'Discrimination Testers' Posing as Job Applicants. (12/08/98) (dead link)
          Guardian Security Services is suing the fake job applicants as well as the Legal Assistance Foundation who employed them.   Guardian is charging that "racial testing" constitutes fraud insofar as neither woman possessed the job qualifications which they claimed in order to tempt Guardian into hiring one of them.  One applicant was a minority, and one was white.   They had almost identical (but fraudulent) resumes.  Guardian offered the job to the white applicant.  This scheme allegedly proved "racial bias" on the part of Guardian.  (Miami Herald 12/08/98)
[former link *http://www.herald.com:80/usa/digdocs/044247.htm]

See Also:  Suits test legality of job-bias testing
          "When Lolita Pierce, a black woman, applied for a job as a receptionist at a Chicago business in 1995, she was told selected applicants would be called later for second interviews.  A few hours later, Eve Loftman, a white woman with similar (falsified) credentials was tested, interviewed, and offered a job.  BUT these women weren't really looking for work!"  They were "racial testers" hired by EEOC or by its allied organizations and contractors!   (Bergen Record 12/08/98)

See Also:  EEOC Attempts to Justify Race-Tester Dishonesty!  (02/01/99)
          The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago receives federal funding to send out bogus job applicants who falsely apply for jobs, using fictitious resumes, in order to trap businesses into hiring the non-minority, thus presumably establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

           But Guardian Security, the target of this particularly dishonest practice, has sued for fraud, and it just might win.

          The EEOC, of course, is required to justify its dishonest, fraudulent practices:  " 'Employment testing is relatively new,'  said Ellen Vargyas, legal counsel for the EEOC in Washington.   'But there's a long history of the use of testers in housing discrimination and other contexts.'

          " 'In law enforcement they're called undercover agents. When an undercover police officer goes out to buy drugs, he's doing nothing different than what a tester does.'

          "Journalists do it, too, Vargyas noted. Even after the Food Lion case, in which a grocery chain won damages for fraud and trespassing after two ABC television producers wore spy cameras to document unsanitary food-handling practices, [Chicago's] Channel 2 did a hidden-camera expose of three Chicago restaurants that aired in November.

          "The Equal Employment Advisory Council, a nationwide association of employers that is backing Guardian in the litigation, says testing is bad public policy. First, the group says, testers aren't really engaged in a controlled scientific experiment because the testers have an interest in the outcome and can skew the results of the experiment through conscious or unconscious behavior. But perhaps more important, the EEAC says, there are significant costs to law-abiding employers and legitimate job-seekers, who may be passed over as hiring officials waste time with phony applicants."  (Chicago Tribune, 02/01/99, by Judy Peres)
[link http://chicagotribune.com/version1/article/0,1575,SAV-9902010068,00.html ]

END Racial Testers and Racial Undercover Agents

Use your Browser's BACK Button to return, or make another selection:

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: September 20, 2000.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.