Here is what Target tells their Calif. employees about Hispanic workers and how to react to them in their distribution warehouses with a document titled: ‘Organization Effectiveness, Employee and Labor Relations Multi-Cultural Tips,’

Local on air media have said about it: ‘unbelievably ridiculous memo’
This Target document instructs managers to note differences among Hispanic employees, and states the following:

“a. Food: not everyone eats tacos and burritos;

“b. Music: not everyone dances to salsa;

“c. Dress: not everyone wears a sombrero;

“d. Mexicans (lower education level, some may be undocumented);

“e. Cubans (Political refugees, legal status, higher education level); and

“f. They may say ‘OK, OK’ and pretend to understand, when they do not, just to save face.”

For full press reports on this July suit see: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com

I have been adding some new posts to my main Target Sucks blog at: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com,  this wordpress site is very much a secondary site for my info. The above blog has about 250 Tarbutt posts, you should take a look and book mark it. There are also other sites with direct links and you can keep up with other T. things.

Keep in mind that I am looking for additional Target info to post, hope some T AP type will send me a new copy of their AP Directives. Who knows maybe T will sue me again!

Here is another T sites: http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com/, http://beckfordvtarget.blogspot.com/ , http://diaz-target.blogspot.com, so take a look at these sites.

10/20/10
Are you keeping up with this case?
Marjorie Ann Diaz v. Target Corporation
see http://www.targetfiling.blogspot.com

Plaintiff Diaz filed a class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Ms Diaz was an hourly non-exempt employee of Target in Irvine, California, from approximately October 2000 until May 2009. The Plaintiff sues on the following causes:

(1) failure to provide meal periods under California Labor Code § 226.7;
(2) failure to provide rest periods,
(3) failure to timely pay wages due at termination,
(4) failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions,
(5) failure to pay overtime compensation,
(6) failure to reimburse expenses,
(7) penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act,
(8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code,
(9) violations of the Unfair Practices Act under California Business & Professions Code

Richard Quintilone needs to register additional current or former California Target employees for this civil suit. If you would like to be included or just want additional information please email info@quintlaw.com.

This is a long and important case, too long to go into a summary here, if you want more info take a look at this blog site for details: http://diaz-target.blogspot.com/

==============================================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJORIE ANN DIAZ, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants.

No. 8:10-CV-01103 AG (MLGx)

PLAINTIFF MARJORIE ANN DIAZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[Filed Concurrently with the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Putative Class Member and Manager
Declarations, Declaration of Richard E.
Quintilone II, Esq. and Exhibits Thereto]

Judge: Hon. Andrew I. Guilford
Date: November 29, 2010
Time: 10:00 AM
Courtroom: 10D, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on November 29, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 10 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiff Marjorie Ann Diaz will move for an order granting class certification.

This motion will be based on this Notice of Motion; the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities; Putative Class Member and Manager Declarations;
Declaration of Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. exhibits thereto; additional Exhibits; and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of the Motion.

Date: October 19, 2010 QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
______________________________
RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II,
Attorney for Plaintiff MARJORIE ANN DIAZ

===========================================

Below is a bit of the 3 page Declaration of Katerra Davis, found on the other referenced blog site:

3. During the 2009 time frame, I attended a weekly training that dealt with the issue of how to get the Target Team Members to wear the red shirts and khaki pants. We were trying to force Team Members to wear the red shirts and khaki pants without actually instructing them that these were “uniforms.”

4. At this meeting, Target Corporate issued written directive and a training statement that told us what we were supposed to say to Team Members in order to persuade them to wear the red shirts and khaki pants, and how to deal with any negativity from team members regarding the uniforms.

5. The statement from Target Corporate regarding the red shirts and khaki pants told us to tell team members about the importance of “being a team player” and that when they are wearing the team colors, they are showing support for the team and it helps to build team morale. The true reason for these statements was to manipulate the team members into wearing the red shirts and khaki pants by making them feel as though they were not part of the Target team if they did not cooperate with the instructions regarding clothing.

6. Pursuant to Target’s Corporate company policy, also called a Training publication, we were not allowed to actually “tell” the team members that they “had” to wear the red shirts and khaki pants, and so this training and statement was to show us how to work around that rule, which I now understand is the law. We were to do that by making team members feel as though they didn’t have the choice not to wear. . .

Keep in mind that this is a secondary Target Sucks blog site, and is NOT kept up to date.  The main blog site is found at:
www.targetfiling.blogspot.com

A seperate blog for the 42 page ‘Target AP Directives’
http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com

See the Target Corp v. John Doe case summary at:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/target-corp-v-doe

www.targetfiling.blogspot.com

Assets Protection Mission Statement:

To enhance profitability, the guest experience, and our reputation by minimizing loss and business disruptions and providing secure environments.

Tarbutt C.S.I.

Tarbutt C.S.I.

This blog and others was set up some years ago when it seemed that Tarbutt ‘might’ prevail in shutting down my major site at: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com, they did have some initial victories in getting my posts about the Target AP Directives removed from several message boards and even some banned my screen name. During that period I was busy with putting up sites like this so that in the event I lost the court case regarding that blog, that at least some sites with the info would continue.

This and other blogs are now secondary sites and not kept up to date as this http://targetfiling.blogspot.com site, so you might want to go to the other site as it remains open for business, the civil suit was tossed out of Federal court in Atlanta July 2008.

 

 

C. Five Steps for Apprehension 

Certified AP team members must observe all five steps prior to making a shoplifter apprehension.

NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.
1. Initiation of Observation – The subject must enter the store/area without possession of Target merchandise.

2. Selection – The subject must be observed selecting Target merchandise from the display location.
3. Concealment – The subject must be observed concealing the merchandise, or the AP team member must have NO reasonable doubt based on observations that the merchandise has been concealed by the subject.
NOTE: If the merchandise is not actually concealed, it must be exposed as the subject exits or attempts to exit the store.
4. Maintain Observation – The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise.
NOTE: A Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) shall be attempted if surveillance is broken for any reason, or the AP team member can not maintain sufficient surveillance. (See PMR Directive)
5. Failure to Pay for Merchandise/Exiting the Store -AP team member(s) must observe the subject attempt to exit the store without paying for the merchandise.

 

NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow variances from the exiting requirement to allow apprehensions of concealed merchandise before an individual reaches the building’s exit. In these cases, the requirements must be documented and approved by the Director or Vice President of Assets Protection using the “Variance from Exiting Form” (found on the AP Zone).

———————————————-

D. Restroom / Fitting Room

 

Apprehensions AP team members are not allowed to conduct surveillance or make apprehensions in restroom and/or fitting rooms.
1. AP team members are not allowed to follow subject’s into a restroom or fitting room to conduct surveillance.
2. AP team members shall not ask another team member to enter a fitting room or restroom to conduct surveillance.
————————————————-

B. Searches of Private Residence or Motor Vehicles

1. AP team members will NOT participate in a search of a private residence or motor vehicle.

————————————————–

1. Fleeing Shoplifter

a. If a shoplifter attempts to flee after being confronted, do not give chase in any manner (running, driving, etc.).

b. Store based AP team members shall not use any vehicle to follow or pursue a subject for any reason.
c. AP team members shall not encourage, condone, suggest or ask another Target team member or anyone else to chase a fleeing shoplifter.
2. AP shall refer for prosecution all individuals apprehended for retail theft when the value of the merchandise is $20.00 or greater and the case meets local prosecution requirements.

NOTE: If a case meets/exceeds the $20.00 referral guideline, but is NOT referred, the reason for non-referral must be included in the CIRS narrative. (Example: Local jurisdiction limits require merchandise in excess of $75.00 in order for prosecution.)

3. A team member witness, of the same gender of the suspected shoplifter , must be present in the room at all times during the detention.

 

——————————————–

A. Photographing Shoplifters

1. Adult shoplifters – AP shall photograph all adult shoplifters unless prohibited by local statutes or ordinances.
2. Team Member Shoplifters – AP will not photograph any team member apprehended for shoplifting during working or non-working hours.

3. Juvenile Shoplifters – AP will not photograph any juveniles apprehended for shoplifting, unless required by local statutes or ordinances.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.