Sheetz is being sued for discriminiation

[Coehorn]

So are convicts now a protected class? Or is the plaintiff asserting that convicts and some other protected class are supposed to be considered one in the same? Or is it possible that in some locations, convicts are unable to secure jobs involving positions of trust requiring a history of no unlawful conduct? Such are the consequences of criminality.

Sheetz has no more obligation to hire convicts than anyone else. Apparently McDonalds and other large retail food/bev companies do similarly.

This case should be dismissed with prejudice. Failing that, it should be tried in Altoona.

Backdoor Reparations. All of it.

The hiring. The assaults. The smash and grabs. The car jackings. The murders. The rapes. The arson. The robberies. The riots.

As Tom Marr so brilliantly stated. Stick a fork it. We're done.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

As I am going through my TS clearance right now, I am struck by the irony. Many questions about criminal history, including criminal activity for which I haven't been caught. But I guess the rules for the Feds are different than the rules they want for a private corporation...

I could add quotes from every post above this one and make " our" point. Why are the folks who go to school, learn all they can, put that knowledge and hard work into either becoming a skilled and educated employee, or a business owner/partner, punished for their efforts. And at the same time, those who are- to make it short--- are career troublemakers are now being exalted and made into protected classes of people who "deserve" the same rewards that hard working folks yield from results of WORK.

How can our country survive when lack of work or even crime is being promoted and even government funded?

The state that our country is in right now has so many hinderances to productivity, that it seems destined to legalize failure and to punish success, initiative and work. It seems that preservation of the entity through practices that enable profit to be realized from the investment of capital, $$$, facilities, infrastructure, risk, workers and the results of the whole assemblage are being demonized and even made illegal through bogus WOKE and alleged discrimination etc claims.

I am totally sick of stories like this Sheetz story. I totally am in favor of the success of the Sheetz family, and am grateful for the food and fuel and other products they have provided me since 1994 when I stepped foot in my first one in Manchester.
I am also thankful for the jobs and incomes they provided to my friends from the Manchester, Hampstead, Hanover areas.

I will say it again, How can our country survive when lack of work or even crime is being promoted and even government funded?

Oh yeah, Socialism.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I bet Wawa put the .gov up to this.

I have a friend from High School who works at a relatively young ( like built 5-8 years ago) WAWA as a manager. I have visited her once there, and also spoke one evening while pumping gas. Her assessment is that her store is incredibly busy, which I knew. BUT, the part I was unaware of, a huge downside that I have empathy for her, the crime comes in so many ways, every day.

For example. One day she told me she had to go get a new cell phone once her day was over because someone stole her old one. Then that day I was getting gas, she was doing her customary checks etc on all the pumps. I mentioned how the door on my pump seemed loose. Then she thanked me and explained how people try to pry them open and somehow steal fuel.
She mentioned having to call the police on some just recently before I saw her.

 

[mpollan1]

I find it interesting that seemingly Sheetz is being singled out here while this is common practice. Did the CEO piss someone off and the Alphabet Gestapo was loosed on him?

 

[Garet Jax]

Sheetz is discriminating - they don't want to hire ex-criminals. If those criminals are predominantly black, then so be it.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I find it interesting that seemingly Sheetz is being singled out here while this is common practice. Did the CEO piss someone off and the Alphabet Gestapo was loosed on him?

The article says they have been working with EEOC for seven years.

I guess they spent all that time presenting evidence against themselves to the agency that is tasked with helping them stay compliant.

Gee, that sounds familiar....

 

[beetles]

If Sheetz can show it weeded out white applicants with criminal backgrounds with the same results, the .gov lawsuit should be tossed.

 

[beetles]

If this went to the SCOTUS the opportunity exists to put the administration in its place on abuse of this kind of enforcement.

 

[RFBfromDE]

If this went to the SCOTUS the opportunity exists to put the administration in its place on abuse of this kind of enforcement.

Not in a lawless administration it won't.

 

[alucard0822]

There tends to be more to the story, or at least SOMETHING that might make sense in court filing, but not here, seems it might just be as it appears, Sheetz uses criminal background checks to screen candidates, there is no accusation that this is applied racially or unfairly, just that apparently there is a disproportionate chance that some races have a criminal record.


in the EEOC;s own press release these seem to make that point this is BS

The EEOC charges that Sheetz’s hiring practices disproportionately screened out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants. Sheetz’s companywide hiring practices violated provisions of Title VII that prohibit disparate impact discrimination, the EEOC says. The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII, which prohibits facially neutral employment practices that cause a discriminatory impact because of race when those practices are not job-related and consistent with business necessity or where alternative practices with less discriminatory impact are available. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division (U.S. EEOC v. Sheetz, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01123-JKB, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice


and the pertinent title VII argument they appear to be suing over:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#:~:text=The Supreme Court explained in,quo of prior discriminatory employment

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 430–31 (1971); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 176–77 (1980); Gaston Cty. v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 297 (1969). The disparate impact regulations ensure “that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination.” H.R. Misc. Doc. No. 124, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 12 (1963). The Supreme Court explained in Griggs, 401 U.S. at 429–30, that under Title VII, which was enacted at the same time as Title VI, “practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”

 

[RFBfromDE]

“practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”

OK.

Now the .gov just have to ID the how Sheetz employment screening practices has operated to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”

If 20 black candidates were screened 20 times but 20 other candidates were screened only 10 times Sheetz has a problem.

If not, they don't. (Shouldn't)

 

[pleasant1911]

lol. This is a slap in the face for these “victims of racism” from sheets. I bet a group of white liberals are behind this. Being racist AF to the people who they claim to stand behind.

 

[beetles]

This law and its application are a prime example of "bad law." There is no standard set for what may or may not be permissible in hiring criteria that aren't directed at discriminating against a protected class, only an opinion that, after the fact, a criteria in practice resulted in some undefined outcome that a particular agency decides after the fact had "the effect" of "discriminating" against a protected class even if the intent had nothing to do with that. So much for mens rea. One year, the outcome might show no discriminatory appearance, the next year, with no change, it might show what they characterize as a discriminatory effect. All that would have to change would be the quality of the applicant pool, year-to-year. This is garbage law and garbage enforcement. This case should belong before the SCOTUS where it could be struck down as unconstitutionally vague.