Law Convenience store chain with hundreds of outlets in 6 states hit with discrimination lawsuit - Biden administration claims that Sheetz discriminated against black job applicants by requiring criminal background checks

BY MICHAEL RUBINKAM
Updated 9:19 PM UTC, April 18, 2024

1713731074497.jpeg
President Joe Biden's limosine is seen outside Sheetz, where the President stopped enroute to Pittsburgh International Airport, Wednesday, April 17, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.

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.”

“Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are. We take these allegations seriously. We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute,” company spokesperson Nick Ruffner said in a statement.

The privately held, family-run company has more than 23,000 employees and operates convenience stores and gas stations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio and North Carolina.

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.

It wasn’t immediately clear how many job applicants have been affected, but the agency said Sheetz’s unlawful hiring practices date to at least 2015.

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 EEOC began its probe of the convenience store chain after two job applicants filed complaints alleging employment discrimination.

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.

Source (Archive)
 
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.
So Biden stopped by your place and you get slapped with a lawsuit because you do... background checks. Which mind you, the feds do for every single federal job, and are far more extensive than whatever Sheetz is doing.
 
President Joe Biden stopped by a Sheetz for snacks this week while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
It’s incredible how petty the interns running the Biden Administration are.

Don't actively assist in their propaganda and they’ll get a federal lawsuit ready to beat you with within a week.
 
As a Wawa nigga I feel this is more than justifed. Chris chan likes Sheetz so that alone should cause it to be punished.

Funny side story in HS my metal shop teacher was an old guy and cool AF taught after retiring twice (once as an engineer than a teacher) he was friends with the Sheetz family.
 
So Biden stopped by your place and you get slapped with a lawsuit because you do... background checks. Which mind you, the feds do for every single federal job, and are far more extensive than whatever Sheetz is doing.
If Biden comes to your business, either kiss ass or get sued. God bless America!
 
“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.

Employees not stealing shit in a low profit margin sales environment surely necessitates a CRB? As long as the employer is paying for the searches, and not doing that dick thing where they force applicants to pay for their own fucking background checks of course, and if this is really the case, then fuck these guys. Yet it probably isn't the case or the lawsuit would mention it.
 
So Biden stopped by your place and you get slapped with a lawsuit because you do... background checks.
This is so funny to me
>Trump visits your local business
>Massive business boom
>Thousands of new regulars
>Free advertisement for the rest of the election cycle
>Biden visits your local business
>Millionare lawsuit for following a decade old standard procedure for most businesses
>Go bankrupt

A financial touch of death that man has
 
Edit: Maybe I'm wrong? Idk, I tried reading more up on this lawsuit but every article I'm reading is more or less a copy+paste of this one.

Original comment: This is outrage bait. The title and most of the article make it sound like this company is getting sued for not hiring people that failed background checks. That isn't true. The actual reason for the lawsuit is in the final paragraph:
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.
Basically, some people were still being hired despite failing a background check, but this lawsuit is claiming discrimination because the non-whites were denied more often than white applicants that also failed the background check. Obviously, if we're going purely by numbers, it does look sus.

Note: I'm not saying this company is racist and is practicing discrimination. Maybe those black/brown applicants had more severe crimes on their background checks compared to white applicants. Or maybe there were just way more white applicants so acceptance rate of whites are always going to skew higher compared to non-whites.
 
Last edited:
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.
Lol they showed up with a threat saying "you're probably breaking the law" a few years early? Jesus christ they're like the fucking mafia.

"pretty nice business you got there... be a shame if you got sued for discriminatory hiring practices..."
As a Wawa nigga I feel this is more than justifed. Chris chan likes Sheetz so that alone should cause it to be punished.
RoFo4lyfe

But yeah, I'd go to a wawa before a sheetz.
 
This is so funny to me
>Trump visits your local business
>Massive business boom
>Thousands of new regulars
>Free advertisement for the rest of the election cycle
>Biden visits your local business
>Millionare lawsuit for following a decade old standard procedure for most businesses
>Go bankrupt

A financial touch of death that man has
It's like the cheese touch, except it causes uncalcuable economic ruin.
 
The title and most of the article make it sound like this company is getting sued for not hiring people that failed background checks. That isn't true. The actual reason for the lawsuit is in the final paragraph:

Basically, some people were being hired despite failing a background check, but this lawsuit is claiming discrimination because non-whites were denied more often than white applicants that also failed the background check. Obviously, if we're going purely by numbers, it does look sus.

Note: I'm not saying this company is racist and is practicing discriminating. Maybe those black/brown applicants had more severe crimes on their background checks compared to white applicants.
You misread it. 8% of White applicants failed the background check compared to 14.5% of black applicants. Everyone who failed was not hired.
 
This is outrage bait. The title and most of the article make it sound like this company is getting sued for not hiring people that failed background checks. That isn't true. The actual reason for the lawsuit is in the final paragraph:

Basically, some people were being hired despite failing a background check, but this lawsuit is claiming discrimination because non-whites were denied more often than white applicants that also failed the background check. Obviously, if we're going purely by numbers, it does look sus.

Note: I'm not saying this company is racist and is practicing discrimination. Maybe those black/brown applicants had more severe crimes on their background checks compared to white applicants. Or maybe there were just way more white applicants so the numbers are always going to skew lower compared to non-whites.
I think the only good compromise is that white people start committing violent crime at the rates of black people to even out this trend. We need to see across the board increases in the committing of such crimes, because that is the only way the government is going to step in.
 
Back