Biden administration suing Sheetz gas station

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP here.

From the article:

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.

Does this mean racial discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP here.

From the article:

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.

Does this mean racial discrimination?

I don't believe it does.

It doesn't say that black job applicants WITH a criminal history failed the screening more than white applicants WITH a criminal history.

Seems to me that a higher number of black, multiracial, and Native American applicants HAD criminal background histories than white applicants.

And, I interpret this because of this statement:

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]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hate to say it, but this is the only way. What kind of improved support can we offer so that at-risk children can find and stay on better paths? Better nutrition for mothers during pregnancy? Getting people off drugs, including marijuana? Better support for families to help raise the quality of their kids' school participation and their sense of investment in school? Destigmatizing vocational education?

[Anonymous]

I am a bit intrigued. Doesn't Sheetz operate mainly in rural Pennsylvania. How many blacks and Native Americans live in rural Pennsylvania? Which suggests that the data the DOJ is working with must rely on a smaller number of applicants that could distort the overall picture.

[Anonymous]

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

Maybe that explains why our public schools are now a magnet for staff ´attracted to children’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP here.

From the article:

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.

Does this mean racial discrimination?

I disagree it that this should be considered discrimination. There are legitimate reasons why a business would avoid hiring people with criminal histories if they work with cash or regularly interact with members of the public. Differential rejection rates are not necessarily prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. IMO, this should only be considered potentially discriminatory if rejection rates are different among racial categories with similar characteristics. Eg. White people with felony convictions, vs Black people with felony convictions. If the differential rejection rates are attributable to necessary job qualification requirements where various populations have unequal frequency of these job qualification criteria, this disparity may be unavoidable, but represent a legitimate business interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a bit intrigued. Doesn't Sheetz operate mainly in rural Pennsylvania. How many blacks and Native Americans live in rural Pennsylvania? Which suggests that the data the DOJ is working with must rely on a smaller number of applicants that could distort the overall picture.

I wonder if sheets could argue that the data is not statistically significant for certain demographic groups.

[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.

The solution is blacks need to stop disproportionately committing felonies.

[Anonymous]

Business owner: "I don't want to hire someone with a criminal record."

DOJ: "Racist!"

gold on so many levels, pure gold

[Anonymous]

When I was in the sandwich I often stayed at my MIL's house in rural Maryland until past midnight, visiting with her, and then drove home through the night. It took me a couple of hours to get home. Sometimes I stopped at a Dunkin Donuts for a coffee, and sometimes I stopped at a Sheetz. I did this once a week. She was the last of her line in her town, and she depended on me a lot. Eventually she became too frail to stay in her home on her own, but I made this trip for years.

As a woman, driving in the middle of the night and needing to use a bathroom, I will not stop at a Sheetz if I think a former rapist is manning the store. It's crazy to think the government thinks it's reasonable to force people traveling at night to worry about whether or not a Sheetz employee is a threat to their safety. I had children at home who needed me. I had a MIL who needed me. I had elderly parents who needed me. What happens when women like me run into a criminally minded employee? Who do I sue if I become a crime victim because a criminal was working at a 24-hour convenience store? In the years I did stop at a Sheetz, it never crossed my mind that there might be criminally-minded emplyees eyeing me as a potential mark.

Seriously, do the good folks in the government not have wives, mothers, sisters who sometimes drive at night? Mostly women assume the role of caring for elderly relatives, and that often entails some sort of travel. We're doing the best we can, juggling our immediate families and our elderly relatives. We don't need to worry about this on top of everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a bit intrigued. Doesn't Sheetz operate mainly in rural Pennsylvania. How many blacks and Native Americans live in rural Pennsylvania? Which suggests that the data the DOJ is working with must rely on a smaller number of applicants that could distort the overall picture.

I’m curious about this too. Rural PA is very white. I grew up in Sheetz country. There should be plenty of white meth and heroin users/sellers to discriminate against too. But there’s also a difference between hiring someone who was busted for having a little bit of pot on them vs a violent offender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The solution is blacks need to stop disproportionately committing felonies.

This is the only correct answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was in the sandwich I often stayed at my MIL's house in rural Maryland until past midnight, visiting with her, and then drove home through the night. It took me a couple of hours to get home. Sometimes I stopped at a Dunkin Donuts for a coffee, and sometimes I stopped at a Sheetz. I did this once a week. She was the last of her line in her town, and she depended on me a lot. Eventually she became too frail to stay in her home on her own, but I made this trip for years.

As a woman, driving in the middle of the night and needing to use a bathroom, I will not stop at a Sheetz if I think a former rapist is manning the store. It's crazy to think the government thinks it's reasonable to force people traveling at night to worry about whether or not a Sheetz employee is a threat to their safety. I had children at home who needed me. I had a MIL who needed me. I had elderly parents who needed me. What happens when women like me run into a criminally minded employee? Who do I sue if I become a crime victim because a criminal was working at a 24-hour convenience store? In the years I did stop at a Sheetz, it never crossed my mind that there might be criminally-minded emplyees eyeing me as a potential mark.

Seriously, do the good folks in the government not have wives, mothers, sisters who sometimes drive at night? Mostly women assume the role of caring for elderly relatives, and that often entails some sort of travel. We're doing the best we can, juggling our immediate families and our elderly relatives. We don't need to worry about this on top of everything else.

That’s a lot of drama.

1) people are convicted for a wide variety of crimes. Not all crimes are violent.

2) Rapists are the LEAST likely to be convicted for their crimes so you have zero reason to think that Sheetz only hiring non-felons makes you one tiny bit safer. It does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s like democrats are desperate to lose elections.

+1
between this and the trans women in sports announcement I feel like they are jsut TRYING to let Trump win!
- Biden voter but so annoyed this is the stuff he's spending time & press on in 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in the sandwich I often stayed at my MIL's house in rural Maryland until past midnight, visiting with her, and then drove home through the night. It took me a couple of hours to get home. Sometimes I stopped at a Dunkin Donuts for a coffee, and sometimes I stopped at a Sheetz. I did this once a week. She was the last of her line in her town, and she depended on me a lot. Eventually she became too frail to stay in her home on her own, but I made this trip for years.

As a woman, driving in the middle of the night and needing to use a bathroom, I will not stop at a Sheetz if I think a former rapist is manning the store. It's crazy to think the government thinks it's reasonable to force people traveling at night to worry about whether or not a Sheetz employee is a threat to their safety. I had children at home who needed me. I had a MIL who needed me. I had elderly parents who needed me. What happens when women like me run into a criminally minded employee? Who do I sue if I become a crime victim because a criminal was working at a 24-hour convenience store? In the years I did stop at a Sheetz, it never crossed my mind that there might be criminally-minded emplyees eyeing me as a potential mark.

Seriously, do the good folks in the government not have wives, mothers, sisters who sometimes drive at night? Mostly women assume the role of caring for elderly relatives, and that often entails some sort of travel. We're doing the best we can, juggling our immediate families and our elderly relatives. We don't need to worry about this on top of everything else.

That’s a lot of drama.

1) people are convicted for a wide variety of crimes. Not all crimes are violent.

2) Rapists are the LEAST likely to be convicted for their crimes so you have zero reason to think that Sheetz only hiring non-felons makes you one tiny bit safer. It does not.

You're right - it's a freaking lot of drama. Many of us live it. We don't need to worry about violent criminals manning the convenience stores.