President Joe Biden stopped by a Sheetz location on Wednesday to purchase snacks while on a campaign swing through Pennsylvania on the same day that his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against the company and two of its subsidiaries.
Apparently, no one informed the president that his administration considered Sheetz guilty of racial discrimination against applicants. Or someone did tell Biden that, and he just didn’t care.
It might not matter, given the questionable nature of the claim against the company.
“According to the lawsuit, Sheetz has maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for records of criminal conviction and then denying them employment based on those records,” the EEOC said in a news release (available below).
Those screenings resulted in 14.5 percent of blacks being turned down for jobs, compared with 13.5 percent of “multiracial” applicants, 13 percent of Native Americans, and nearly 8 percent of whites.
The EEOC did not accuse Sheetz of active racism, but said federal law prohibits hiring practices that impact minorities differently than non-minorities.
Even if the criminal background checks are shown to be necessary, an EEOC lawyer said, they could still be unlawful if some other means could be employed that would provide safety without the allegedly discriminatory effects.
The EEOC statement suggested no such alternatives, however.
Sheetz pushed back on the lawsuit, which seeks to “force Sheetz to offer jobs to applicants who were unlawfully denied employment and to provide back pay, retroactive seniority and other benefits,” according to The Associated Press — which could be quite an undertaking, given that the EEOC claims that the company’s illegal hiring process has been in place for nearly 10 years.
Is Joe Biden a hypocrite for patronizing Sheetz and suing it on the same day?
For his part, Biden didn’t seem to notice any racial disparities in the workforce or customer base he attempted to schmooze last week.
In fairness, however, it should be noted that what Joe Biden notices or doesn’t notice in his immediate surroundings might not be the best gauge of what’s actually there.
For its part, Sheets argued that it “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” the outlet reported.
“Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are,” company spokesman Nick Ruffner told the AP in a statement. “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.”
The entire Thursday news release from the EEOC, which was published under the headline “EEOC Sues Sheetz, Inc. For Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practice,” follows below.
BALTIMORE – Sheetz, a large convenience store chain, violated federal law by denying employment to a class of job applicants because of their race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The EEOC filed suit against Sheetz, Inc.; Sheetz Distribution Services, LLC; and CLI Transport, LP (collectively, Sheetz), which together operate a chain of convenience stores with over 600 locations in six states. According to the lawsuit, Sheetz has maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for records of criminal conviction and then denying them employment based on those records.
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.
“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,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “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.”
EEOC Philadelphia District Office Director Jamie R. Williamson said, “This highlights the significance of the observance of April as Second Chance Month, underscoring our nation’s commitment to reintegrating individuals with criminal records into society by ensuring they have fair access to employment and other essential services. To that end, the EEOC is dedicated to making sure that individuals with criminal records are not unlawfully excluded from employment opportunities because of race.”
Guidance on employer consideration of arrest or conviction can be found here: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-consideration-arrest-and-conviction-records-employment-decisions. For more information on race and color discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination.
The lawsuit was initiated by the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, one of four component offices of the agency’s Philadelphia District Office. The Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C., and portions of Virginia.
