A lawsuit filed in Illinois is poised to test the boundaries of how employers may lawfully consider pending criminal charges when making hiring decisions, with potential implications for compliance under state civil rights law.
The plaintiff, Courtney McElrath-Bey, has brought suit against Target, alleging that the company violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, as amended by the Employee Background Fairness Act, when it rescinded a conditional employment offer based on unresolved criminal allegations.
Factual background
According to the complaint, Target extended McElrath-Bey a conditional offer in October 2023 for a warehouse position, contingent on the results of a background check. Following the screening, the company issued a pre-adverse action notice identifying pending criminal charges, including robbery and aggravated battery filed in March 2024.
McElrath-Bey, who has pleaded not guilty and continues to contest the charges, responded by asserting that the allegations were unresolved and should not disqualify her from employment. The offer was subsequently withdrawn.
The plaintiff also references a separate December 2025 arrest for alleged retail theft and trespassing, charges that were later dismissed after the complainant failed to appear in court.
Legal framework
At issue is the application of Illinois’ Employee Background Fairness Act, which restricts employers from taking adverse employment action based on criminal history unless specific criteria are met. The statute requires an individualized assessment of:
- Whether there is a substantial relationship between the alleged offense and the job; or
- Whether hiring the individual would pose an unreasonable risk to property or the safety of others.
The law further mandates procedural safeguards, including notice requirements and an opportunity for the applicant to respond before a final decision is made.
McElrath-Bey’s complaint alleges that Target’s decision failed to satisfy these statutory standards and constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of arrest record.
Potential class implications
The lawsuit reportedly seeks to expand into a class action encompassing similarly situated applicants whose offers were rescinded following background checks revealing pending charges. If certified, the case could expose employers to broader liability under Illinois law.
Broader legal significance
The case highlights an evolving area of employment law as jurisdictions increasingly regulate the use of criminal history in hiring. While “ban-the-box” and related reforms have focused primarily on prior convictions, the treatment of pending charges remains a contested issue.
Employers must navigate competing considerations: mitigating workplace risk while ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination statutes that protect individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.
Legal analysts note that the outcome may clarify the extent to which pending charges—absent conviction—can be deemed job-related or indicative of risk under Illinois law.
Outlook
The litigation is expected to focus on whether Target conducted the required individualized assessment and whether the nature of the alleged offenses bears a legally sufficient nexus to the duties of the position at issue.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could prompt employers to reassess background screening policies and reinforce the need for documented, job-specific risk analyses when considering applicants with unresolved criminal matters.
