First, Yuuuuge disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, and the rules are different pretty much everywhere so, in this context I'm speaking as a California resident about employers in California, and there are reasons it is hard to win a hiring based case[1] ...

To award damages you have to make the case that you were harmed. It is one thing to sue a company that dismisses you for discriminatory reasons, you had a job and a salary, and a court could find that you were discriminated against, so you were "harmed" by the loss of pay. The court could award back pay and punitive damages to make you whole. However if you had yet to be hired, there isn't any way to prove either what your salary would have been, or if you had worked there that you would not have been dismissed for any of a million completely legal reasons. As a result and claim for damages would have to somehow prove that by not hiring you you were somehow not hireable or through perhaps a long an tortuous interview process you were financially harmed. Both very hard to do.

The big difference is that you've never worked there, so you haven't been harmed. However, it is illegal to discriminate and the remedy for illegal discrimination is a fine administered in response to a criminal complaint. That is why you get the NLRB involved, they can bring criminal charges, you can't[2].

[1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-based-the-hi...

[2] Not strictly true, you could swear out a complaint but it would be up to the District Attorney to decide if they were going to prosecute based on your complaint.