Sheetz Convenience Stores Accused Of Discriminating Against Minority Job Seekers By Refusing To Consider Applicants With Criminal Record

https://www.thepublica.com/she...ith-criminal-record/

A popular US convenience store chain has been hit with a civil rights lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against minority job seekers because it requires applicants to have no criminal record.

On April 18, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Sheetz Inc., accusing the 24/7 convenience store chain of having discriminatory hiring practices that targeted minority applicants.

According to the lawsuit, Sheetz has maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for records of criminal conviction and then denying them employment based on those records.

As a result, the EEOC is accusing Sheetz of “disproportionately screening out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants.” This is despite the fact that the lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz’s hiring practices were motivated by race.

According to the EEOC press release, Sheetz’s hiring practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “Even when such necessity is proven, the practice remains unlawful if there is an alternative practice available that is comparably effective in achieving the employer’s goals but causes less discriminatory effect.”

The EEOC began its probe into Sheetz after two job applicants filed civil rights complaints alleging employment discrimination.

The agency then found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.

By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit states.

Sheetz is a chain of gas stations and convenience stores primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, particularly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The franchise is most well-known for its customizable food options similar to WaWa, with a number of made-to-order dishes, frozen desserts, and milkshakes available.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
As a result, the EEOC is accusing Sheetz of “disproportionately screening out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants.” This is despite the fact that the lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz’s hiring practices were motivated by race.

I'd love to see a Sheetz rep say, "criminal history is exactly none of those protected classes. So take a hike."

California last year passed Assembly Bill 1418 that prohibits landlords from evicting or discriminating against renting to those with criminal records, even felonies, the law went into effect in Jan. The author freely admits the bill was for "racial justice", specifically blacks and hispanics.

Absurd...Wonder when they're going to start suing every law enforcement agency in the country.

It depends on the charge. Hiring child molesters to work at a day care would be a bad move. On the other hand many of these guys make fine employees.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
As a result, the EEOC is accusing Sheetz of “disproportionately screening out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants.” This is despite the fact that the lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz’s hiring practices were motivated by race.

I'd love to see a Sheetz rep say, "criminal history is exactly none of those protected classes. So take a hike."

They did. That’s why suit was filed.

The sad fact is that .gov has unlimited monetary resources for this. It will cost Sheetz (or their EPLI insurer) well into six figures in legal fees just to defend with no guarantee of a positive outcome.

-Rob

St. Louis City has had an ordinance that is similar, preventing you from even having that as a question on an application. I don't remember the exact wording, but their rules don't apply when the conviction may actually be something that should prohibit that person from working in that field.

Take me for example, or any other security based operation. License issuers and insurers typically require that your employees pass background checks.

Doesn't the EEOC realize that this is blanket admission that certain "protected classes" have a higher predilection for criminal activity, and other sociopathic behavior? Who is going to sue them for this outrageous accusation?

Convenience stores are a cash handling business, and they have 700 stores. Employing criminals is idiotic.

I know attorneys are expensive, but it's got to be cheaper to fight this than the losses would be at 700 stores.

Despite yet another click bait title, since the government is doing no such thing, yet.

According to the article: 14.5% of blacks, 13.5% of multi-racial, 13.0% of Native Americans, and 8.0% of whites were automatically denied employment due to criminal records. I don’t see a big issue there and hope Sheetz prevails. If they don’t, I’m sure new policies could be implemented like eliminating certain crimes, theft, DUI, drug possession, etc, that would be unsuitable for Sheetz employees from the pool of applicants.

"the lawsuit is alleging that minorities are disproportionately represented among criminals, so we're counter suing for discrimination"

Here's Hillsdale's thought on 'disparate impact' as an analytical technique:
Imprimis Feb 2024 "Disparate Impact Thinking is Destroying Our Civilization"

quote:

UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS
We need to face up to the truth: the reason for racial underrepresentation across a range of meritocratic fields is the academic skills gap. The reason for racial overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is the crime gap.

Do they hire white criminals?

If not, then it sounds like their “discrimination” has absolutely nothing to do with race.


The “by race” break down of percentage of “X” being refused employment is a straw man.


Defense should be as simple as…

“Sheetz Convenience Stores turned away:
100% of Black job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Multiracial job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Native American job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Asian job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of White job applicants with a record of criminal conviction“

(Assuming it is true)

Can’t be any less “discriminatory” than that!

Sounds good to me. To be fair, when will the feds remove the no criminal history requirement for special agent jobs with the FBI, Secret Service, Customs or even an entry level job with the Capital Police ? Just wondering..

^^^ Excellent!

quote:

Originally posted by jer830:
Sounds good to me. To be fair, when will the feds remove the no criminal history requirement for special agent jobs with the FBI, Secret Service, Customs or even an entry level job with the Capital Police ? Just wondering..

Lots of City/State PD’s are beginning to “relax” both criminal history and citizenship requirements…

Sheetz lawyer: “So, Mr EEOC HR person that we have subpoenaed to testify, please tell us which positions a criminal can get hired with the fed.gov. A systems admin? An HR perosn with access to sensitive info? Any job that needs a security clearance ?”

Sounds like the owners of sheetz didn’t make a big enough DNC donation…

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by jer830:
Sounds good to me. To be fair, when will the feds remove the no criminal history requirement for special agent jobs with the FBI, Secret Service, Customs or even an entry level job with the Capital Police ? Just wondering..

Lots of City/State PD’s are beginning to “relax” both criminal history and citizenship requirements…

Yeah I know. I did backgrounds at my agency for several years. The point I was trying to make was the courts are always tossing roadblocks in the way of private employers who only want to be able to hire the best person who won’t steal them blind, and telling them what to do. It’s about time to remove that double standard and see how that works out, which of course will fail miserably.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Defense should be as simple as…

“Sheetz Convenience Stores turned away:
100% of Black job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Multiracial job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Native American job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of Asian job applicants with a record of criminal conviction
100% of White job applicants with a record of criminal conviction“

(Assuming it is true)

Can’t be any less “discriminatory” than that!

That is an excellent start. Even better would be to do their own deep dive on who they hired (because you know that will be the governments response) and (if the numbers are favorable):

“Of applicants who are not criminals, Sheetz Convenience Stores has hired:

80% of Black job applicants,
80% of Multiracial job applicants,
80% of Native American job applicants,
80% of Asian job applicants,
and 80% of White job applicants.”

If the numbers are similar/close, this is an even stronger response. “We discriminate 100% against criminals. To our knowledge, criminals are not a protected class. We do not discriminate against any protected class.”

Of course if the numbers are not generally level (which they may well not be due to discriminating based on competence, as a result of educational difference), better to stick with your excellent approach.

Biden lawsuit against Sheetz gas will enrage Pennsylvania voters

https://www.washingtonexaminer...pennsylvania-voters/

The oldest gas station in America still in operation, Reighard’s here in this Blair County city, got its start in 1908 when a local blacksmith decided to sell gasoline out the back of his shop when the Model T was introduced.

It has been open ever since. While architecturally it is underwhelming, the service is good because the people who work there care about the work they do, whether it is pumping gas, washing your windshield, or doing minor fixes on your car. It is important to them that you return.

While Reighard’s holds the title of the oldest gas station in the country, it was another Altoona family that put a different kind of gas station excellence on the map. The Sheetz family story is one of struggles. This family-friendly service station struggled with a salmonella breakout in 2004, but it retained a deeply local customer base and expanded well beyond its western Pennsylvania roots.

Ask any traveler in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio and North Carolina and they’ll tell you when they see the cheery red and yellow stations along their drives, Sheetz means quality and comfort to their loyal customers.

One very loyal and vocal customer is Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), the Braddock Democrat who often posts on X his preference for Sheetz over Wawa, the other mega service station based in the state, with cheeky posts such as “Sheetz > Wawa.”

With so much loyalty among residents in the state, it made sense for President Joe Biden to do a photo op at a Sheetz in suburban Pittsburgh last week after his visit with local steelworkers. He wanted to demonstrate that he is no different than any other Pennsylvanian in his affection for the family-owned business.

Biden even went so far as to pick up sandwiches for construction workers after pulling the presidential motorcade into the Sheetz gas station in Moon Township. Wearing his aviator glasses, he posed for a selfie with an employee.

Then things got weird.

Just one day after the president’s orchestrated Sheetz run, the Biden administration hit the privately held convenience store chain with a federal lawsuit in which federal officials say the company discriminated against minority job applicants. The theory, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is that because the company uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers, somehow that’s a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence wrote that criminal background checks “cause a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications.”

Lawrence went on to say the employment hiring practices must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue.

“Even when such necessity is proven, the practice remains unlawful if there is an alternative practice available that is comparably effective in achieving the employer’s goals but causes less discriminatory effect,” Lawrence added. The suit said Sheetz discriminated against black, Native American, and multiracial job seekers by weeding out applicants who failed a criminal background check.

Logic says EEOC’s underlying assumptions are that nonwhites are criminals. That’s absurd and insulting.

Sheetz employs nearly 25,000 employees in a stretch of Appalachia that cuts diagonally through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, and North Carolina. It is a company that gives back to the community through a charitable foundation and has a tradition on the Fourth of July of honoring customers by rolling back prices on all types of fuel except diesel at all 675-plus locations. That day’s fuel cost is always $1.776 per gallon, a tribute to the founding year of 1776.

Going after Sheetz is like tugging on Superman’s cape in Pennsylvania, in particular in central and western Pennsylvania when pulling up to a Sheetz is like pulling up to home. This is especially so when the alleged “violation” is what common sense says is just good business practices, such as making sure employees who interact with the public aren’t criminals.

Like the Biden administration’s pause of exports of American liquefied natural gas, which harms hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state, or his proposed rule for the 45V hydrogen production tax credit that would cut Pennsylvania workers out of the equation in the hydrogen industry, the Sheetz lawsuit has local Democrats shaking their heads.

As one Democrat said privately, “Is [Biden] just trying to lose Pennsylvania?”