In September 2014, the claimant, a deaf man, filled out an online application for an entry-level, front clerk position at a Target store, in Antioch. Due to his qualifications, Target intended to contact the applicant. However, when Target’s human resources representatives called the applicants number, they reached a Video Relay Service (VRS), which enabled the applicant to communicate with hearing people using a sign language interpreter. The applicant’s phone records indicated that Target called twice, but hung up both times without leaving a message, even though Target left messages for others in the application process. The applicant claimed that he returned the two missed calls when he learned of them through his VRS and that he also contacted Target four more times, but that every time he contacted the store, he spoke to an human resources representative who informed him that Target would call him back to schedule an interview. Between Oct. 23, 2014, and Oct. 31, 2014, Target hired seven non-disabled applicants to fill vacancies in the Antioch store. It never scheduled an interview with the applicant and it ultimately rejected him for hiring. The applicant filed a claim with plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC sued Target Corp. Inc., alleging that the corporation’s actions constituted violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Target’s counsel denied the allegations, and contended that the applicant was being considered for a seasonal job at Target, for which the claimant was one of over 500 applicants for just seven slots. Counsel asserted that due to the high volume of applicants, Target’s representatives reached out to many of applicants to set up interviews and that its human resources staff had reached out to the applicant to set up an interview, but that the interview did not get scheduled before all the positions were filled. Counsel noted Target’s policy of providing qualified interpreters for interviews with deaf applicants, which are allegedly well laid-out in its training materials on reasonable accommodation. Target’s counsel added that Target had employed five different hearing-impaired individuals at the Antioch store, alone, in the last four years, including one profoundly deaf employee., The applicant sought recovery of lost wages as a result of not being hired, as well as sought recovery of other compensatory damages.