From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 77 (1991)
As a condition of employment, applicants for the position of store security officer (SSO) at Target Stores were required to pass a psychological screening test called Psychscreen. Psychscreen consisted of 704 true or false questions, including invasive and personal questions about the applicant’s religious beliefs, sex life, and sexual orientation. Sibi Soroka (plaintiff) applied for an SSO position and took the Psychscreen test. Soroka was hired by Target but was upset by the intrusive nature of the test’s questions. Soroka and two other applicants whom Target did not hire filed a class action against Target Stores’ parent company, Dayton Hudson Corporation (defendant), alleging that the test violated their and other applicants’ right to privacy under the California Constitution. The class action sought, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting Target from using the Psychscreen test while the lawsuit was pending. Target argued that the test was intended to screen out applicants who were emotionally unstable or who would not follow company procedures. Target’s SSOs were not armed but did carry handcuffs and were authorized to apprehend and arrest suspected shoplifters. Target offered evidence that the use of Psychscreen had improved the overall quality and performance of its SSOs. However, there was no evidence that an applicant’s religious beliefs or sexual orientation generally affected her emotional stability or her ability to perform the duties of an SSO. The trial court declined to enter a preliminary injunction, and Soroka appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Reardon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.