Woman Facing Robbery Charge Sues Target for Not Hiring Her

Lawsuit seeks damages and could expand to cover other applicants denied jobs due to criminal history.

Published on Mar. 8, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Courtney McElrath-Bey of Chicago has filed a lawsuit against Target after the retailer rescinded a job offer due to her pending robbery and aggravated battery charges. McElrath-Bey's lawsuit claims Target's decision violates Illinois' 2021 Employee Background Fairness Act, which prohibits the use of criminal history in many hiring decisions.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing debate around the use of criminal background checks in hiring and whether they constitute unlawful discrimination, especially in light of recent state laws aimed at limiting their application.

The details

According to the complaint, Target extended McElrath-Bey a conditional job offer in October 2025 for a warehouse position, but later rescinded the offer after learning about her pending robbery and aggravated battery charges. McElrath-Bey's lawsuit seeks damages and could potentially expand to cover other applicants denied jobs under similar circumstances.

  • In October 2025, Target extended McElrath-Bey a conditional job offer.
  • In February 2026, McElrath-Bey filed the lawsuit against Target.

The players

Courtney McElrath-Bey

A Chicago resident who is facing robbery and aggravated battery charges and has filed a lawsuit against Target for rescinding a job offer due to her criminal history.

Target

A major retail corporation that rescinded a job offer to McElrath-Bey after learning about her pending criminal charges.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Background checks are discriminatory. In liberal utopia, they will be abolished.”

— Dave Blount, Author (moonbattery.com)

What’s next

The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and it remains to be seen whether it will be expanded to cover other applicants denied jobs due to their criminal histories.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between employers' desire to screen applicants and recent laws aimed at limiting the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions, raising questions about balancing public safety, fairness, and second chances.