(Reverse Chronology: Recent Stories Appear First)
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
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
"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
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
[Alternate Link: http://www.foxnews.com/national/0918/d_ap_0918_181.sml
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)
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
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
"LAFC is the federally-funded legal services program in Chicago. ... The Legal
Assistance Foundation of Chicago, (LAFC), a not-for-profit corporation"
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
"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
Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago
111 W. Jackson, Third Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 431-1206 (TDD)
LAFC Web Site: http://www.lafchicago.org/
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
|Related Racial Testing
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
"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
"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)
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
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
[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
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)
END Racial Testers and Racial Undercover