Biden administration suing Sheetz gas station

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Someone who was arrested for Marijuana possession at 17 should not be put in a position to not be able to make a living for the rest of his/her life.

Make marijuana legal if possession isnt a big deal and let business owners make their own hiring decisions.

How about business owners make hiring decisions based on skill and competency? They have no proof or data that a marijuana possession charge predicts on the job performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Savopolous family in DC made the mistake and those poor people paid for it with their lives, I will never forget that they have an ex con a chance. No, sorry Biden can hire criminals for his security and other services if he’s so pressed to help them. Utterly ridiculous!

Not all felons were violent offenders.

And if they’re hiring white felons but not black felons, do you understand the problem?

[Anonymous]

Are the republicans trying to make sure Trump stays unemployed after he loses the election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you saying that People Of Color make worse choices, on average, than White People?

No just pointing out that is what the numbers show. But yes, today math is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is it in a nutshell. Blacks commit disproportionately more crime than whites or any other races. I did a quick google search and it seems blacks are six times more likely to go to jail and represent around 37% of the prison population, three times their national percentage. Logically, it means Sheetz is not discriminating against blacks rather than that the hiring rejections reflects that blacks are much more likely to commit crime and go to prison.

Don't see how DOJ wins this one.

This is racism. We see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Savopolous family in DC made the mistake and those poor people paid for it with their lives, I will never forget that they have an ex con a chance. No, sorry Biden can hire criminals for his security and other services if he’s so pressed to help them. Utterly ridiculous!

Not all felons were violent offenders.

And if they’re hiring white felons but not black felons, do you understand the problem?

Once again, based on the statement issued by the EEOC, that doesn't seem to be the case.

It seems as if they are eager to force businesses to hire people with a criminal history.

The EEOC is suing Sheetz on the ground that when it declines to hire ex-cons, it disproportionately screens out black men (even though Sheetz isn’t motivated by race). This isn’t a new EEOC policy. The agency has been taking this position for years. But that doesn’t make it any less a travesty.

The overall affirmative defense standard is “business necessity.” Alas, some interpret that standard to mean “if we aren’t allowed to screen for this, we will literally go out of business.” And the EEOC comes closer to that position than it should. One among many problems with the EEOC’s position is that a criminal record negatively correlates with just about all the basic qualities employers tend to look for—from punctuality to ability to get along with one’s fellow employees. Hence it should be viewed as always “job related”. Yet the EEOC finds it seldom job related. The EEOC’s position is so extreme, it refuses to allow employers to reject ex-felons for a particular job EVEN WHEN STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Savopolous family in DC made the mistake and those poor people paid for it with their lives, I will never forget that they have an ex con a chance. No, sorry Biden can hire criminals for his security and other services if he’s so pressed to help them. Utterly ridiculous!

Yep.
Doubt some of those that the EEOC expects Sheetz to hire could even be cleared for a White House tour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is it in a nutshell. Blacks commit disproportionately more crime than whites or any other races. I did a quick google search and it seems blacks are six times more likely to go to jail and represent around 37% of the prison population, three times their national percentage. Logically, it means Sheetz is not discriminating against blacks rather than that the hiring rejections reflects that blacks are much more likely to commit crime and go to prison.

Don't see how DOJ wins this one.

I don’t think Sheetz’s hiring practice of excluding ex-cons is discriminatory, but our justice system is. Have you ever seen the documentary “Gideon’s Army?” Poor families can’t pay to make criminal records disappear, like families with money can. Different races have different poverty rates. Gee, I wonder if there’s any historical explanation for race-based economic disparity? 🤔

Black people, or rather, black men commit a lot of crime. Far more than any other racial demographic. Far more than poor white men of disadvantaged backgrounds. You can try to spin your way out of it and goodness knows people have been steadily trying to do so for the last few years (decades) but the disparity still persists. At this point it's pretty clear "systematic racism" as the argument is only getting weaker and weaker. Most black men are not criminals and shun, justly, criminal activity, but the unfortunate reality is that a large minority still are.

The Biden DOJ is just following the typical progressive outlook which is to blame everything except the culprits at the heart of the matter: the criminals themselves. Because they can't stomach any racial disparities and it cannot be due to personal behaviors and failures and decision making. They're just avoiding the truth, as most progressives do, but in the process make a mockery of everything they do to avoid the truth,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're a Biden voter who voted for this type of extreme insanity. And then you wonder why it happens? So funny.

You vote for radical left-wing extremism. You get radical left-wing extremism. And then you wonder why there is left-wing extremism. You can't make this stuff up.

More accurately I voted AGAINST Trump. And will again. There is almost nothing the Ds could do to make me vote for him instead. But I am aware others are more in the swing zone which is why it drives me nuts they are alienating some of those folks in an election year with stuff like the policies announced this month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, "disparate impact" in general is no longer a basis for determining unlawful discrimination, there has to be something more, usually some evidence of intent or animus. This is tricky because it wasn't entirely one thing vs another:

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.

I guess I would like to know more, and no doubt the court case will hash this out. Because SOME white applicants were rejected, just fewer than non-white. And what were the criteria/factors for disregarding a failed background check? I would think if you failed, you failed.

[Anonymous]

SO.

How many convicted felons has the Justice Department hired?

How many convicted felons has the EEOC hired?

Hhmm?

Louder please. I can't hear your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is it in a nutshell. Blacks commit disproportionately more crime than whites or any other races. I did a quick google search and it seems blacks are six times more likely to go to jail and represent around 37% of the prison population, three times their national percentage. Logically, it means Sheetz is not discriminating against blacks rather than that the hiring rejections reflects that blacks are much more likely to commit crime and go to prison.

Don't see how DOJ wins this one.

This is racism. We see you.

That is not relevant to the situation the EEOC is going after. their case is based on what percentage of whites vs blacks (and other POC) who FAIL THE BACKGROUND CHECK get hired. Nothing to do with percentage of blacks in the overall population. Nothing to with black vs white arrest or conviction rates.* Doesn't matter how many black/white applicants there are, as long as there are enough to do some statistical analysis. You could have 1800 black applicants, say 150 fail the background check, you hire 12 of those people. You have 1000 white applicants, 82 of them fail the background check, you hire 12 of them. Here you have an equal number of black vs white employees, and in fact here a minority of the applicants are white, and both populations have the same crime rate. But you still reject more of the black pool (Of people who failed the background check) than the white pool.

See, this is where your unconscious bias is distorting your thinking--to the point where you automatically go to "well, crime rate among blacks is higher" (and maybe you even believe it is for social economic reasons, you're actually a centrist liberal). WHich means you are actually FAILING to analyze the information in front of you and going to your embedded expectations.

* if it did, this would be a different conversation. In fact, since the EXACT SAME CONDUCT is more likely to result in arrest, more likely to result in charges, more likely to result in conviction, and more likely to result in a harsher sentence for a black person vs white, the discrepancy in hiring should really work the other way--black person more likely to have en overcharged, say, than white person. And black person with no criminal record is more likely to be an ACTUAL solid citizen than a white person with no criminal record.

btw I'm white. I also know how to do word problems in math.

[Anonymous]

^^ more simply put:

You're an employer who decides to commit to a program to help people with convictions get on their feet, which requires having a job. Agency sends you 100 black employees and 100 white. BY definition, all of these people would have failed the normal background check for your business. But you decide you are going to take 14 white people but only 8 black people.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is it in a nutshell. Blacks commit disproportionately more crime than whites or any other races. I did a quick google search and it seems blacks are six times more likely to go to jail and represent around 37% of the prison population, three times their national percentage. Logically, it means Sheetz is not discriminating against blacks rather than that the hiring rejections reflects that blacks are much more likely to commit crime and go to prison.

Don't see how DOJ wins this one.

This is racism. We see you.

That is not relevant to the situation the EEOC is going after. their case is based on what percentage of whites vs blacks (and other POC) who FAIL THE BACKGROUND CHECK get hired. Nothing to do with percentage of blacks in the overall population. Nothing to with black vs white arrest or conviction rates.* Doesn't matter how many black/white applicants there are, as long as there are enough to do some statistical analysis. You could have 1800 black applicants, say 150 fail the background check, you hire 12 of those people. You have 1000 white applicants, 82 of them fail the background check, you hire 12 of them. Here you have an equal number of black vs white employees, and in fact here a minority of the applicants are white, and both populations have the same crime rate. But you still reject more of the black pool (Of people who failed the background check) than the white pool.

See, this is where your unconscious bias is distorting your thinking--to the point where you automatically go to "well, crime rate among blacks is higher" (and maybe you even believe it is for social economic reasons, you're actually a centrist liberal). WHich means you are actually FAILING to analyze the information in front of you and going to your embedded expectations.

* if it did, this would be a different conversation. In fact, since the EXACT SAME CONDUCT is more likely to result in arrest, more likely to result in charges, more likely to result in conviction, and more likely to result in a harsher sentence for a black person vs white, the discrepancy in hiring should really work the other way--black person more likely to have en overcharged, say, than white person. And black person with no criminal record is more likely to be an ACTUAL solid citizen than a white person with no criminal record.

btw I'm white. I also know how to do word problems in math.

The EEOC court filing suggests that black, native, and multiracial applicants were disproportionately failing background checks submitted with job applications due to criminal records. This makes disparities in the frequency of criminal records among various demographic groups absolutely relevant. This is not "unconscious bias" to suggest differences in the frequency of criminal records is a potential cause of the disparity. it is simply a reference to factual statistical information.

[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.

JFC, you are a complete moron. As is the Biden administration.