Biden administration suing Sheetz gas station

[Anonymous]

Biden administration is suing Sheetz for denying employment to people who have failed criminal background checks.
So, are employers now going to be forced to hire individuals with a criminal history?

Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.

President Joe Biden stopped by a Sheetz for snacks this week while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in Baltimore against Altoona, Pennsylvania-based Sheetz and two subsidary companies, alleging the chain’s longstanding hiring practices have a disproportionate impact on minority applicants and thus run afoul of federal civil rights law.

Sheetz said Thursday that it “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on Wednesday, the day Biden stopped at a Sheetz market on a western Pennsylvania campaign swing, buying snacks, posing for photos and chatting up patrons and employees.

Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.

“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,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement.

“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 said.

The EEOC, an independent agency that enforces federal laws against workplace discrimination, is seeking to force Sheetz to offer jobs to applicants who were unlawfully denied employment and to provide back pay, retroactive seniority and other benefits.

The agency 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 said.

The EEOC notified Sheetz in 2022 that it was likely violating civil rights law, but the agency said its efforts to mediate a settlement failed, prompting this week’s lawsuit.

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/state-news/convenience-store-chain-with-hundreds-of-outlets-in-6-states-hit-with-discrimination-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Biden stopped at a Sheetz gas station a few days ago on the campaign trail.

Now his admin is suing them because black applicants disproportionately fail their criminal background checks.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, this is evidence that Sheetz hiring practices are discriminatory.

In short, if you choose not to hire people with a criminal history, you will be accused of racism and the federal government will try to crush your business.

[Anonymous]

If you hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than black ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism.

It isn't a matter of hiring ex-cons versus not, but the person in the tweet won't tell you that.

[Anonymous]

The eeoc is an independent agency.

And yes, it should address racism. Which is what the lawsuit is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If y9ou hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than white ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism.

It isn't a matter of hiring ex-cons versus not, but the person in the tweet won't tell you that.

Your writing doesn't even make sense.

"If y9ou hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than white ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism." ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than black ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism.

It isn't a matter of hiring ex-cons versus not, but the person in the tweet won't tell you that.

That is not what appears to be happening, though.

From the link above:

Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.

“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,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement.

“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 said.

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is a winning campaign issue.

[Anonymous]

Great! Let's expand this. No reason ex-cons can't work in schools too. I hear it's tough to hire cafeteria workers.

[Anonymous]

They’ve got it backwards. The answer isn’t to promote hiring ex-cons to balance hiring among races; the answer is to address the systemic issues that lead to a significant disparity in incarceration rates by race. But this is easier, so let’s just keep incarcerating POC at higher rates and pretend the problem starts with hiring practices after they get out of prison.

[Anonymous]

Watch the Supreme Court overturn the disparate impact rule. I think this might backfire on the Biden Admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is a winning campaign issue.

It’s like democrats are desperate to lose elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’ve got it backwards. The answer isn’t to promote hiring ex-cons to balance hiring among races; the answer is to address the systemic issues that lead to a significant disparity in incarceration rates by race. But this is easier, so let’s just keep incarcerating POC at higher rates and pretend the problem starts with hiring practices after they get out of prison.

Or realize that the problem starts with POC making bad choices instead of taking advantage of tax payer funded education to make a better life for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than black ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism.

It isn't a matter of hiring ex-cons versus not, but the person in the tweet won't tell you that.

This. Will also add that giving parolees a second chance greatly reduces recidivism, which is good for everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you hire white ex-cons at a higher rate than black ex-cons, then yes, that is evidence of racism.

It isn't a matter of hiring ex-cons versus not, but the person in the tweet won't tell you that.

citation needed

[Anonymous]

The best part will be when they hire criminals and then get sued when said criminal commits a crime against a customer