Lawsuit: Convenience store chain denied jobs to minority job applicants with criminal backgrounds

"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."
https://www.post-gazette.com/busine...ation-lawsuit-minorities/stories/202404180129

So denying jobs to applicants who couldn't pass a background check is discriminatory because a higher percentage of minority applicants had criminal histories....

 

as the number is only 14.5%, that means the other 85.5% of blacks with a criminal history were hired, sounds like this is a bogus claim of discrimination to me

 

Does not sound discriminatory to me, at least not on the part of those using background checks to hire. Is it possible the criminal histories were based upon racism when cops used their discretion? Perhaps. But that's not the hiring manager's fault.

 

If this pappens, can we do away with background checks for gun sales too?

 

Doubtful. I guess if you're black and can't buy a gun due a criminal history then you could sue the federal government for discrimination. But I don't think the Civil Rights Act says anything about that scenario.

The Civil Rights Act does say something about employment practices having a disproportionately negative impact on minority groups (even when there is no intentional discrimination involved). Sheetz will need to prove that it was necessary to not hire people with criminal backgrounds. It seems that the EEOC thinks such people should be given a second chance:

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

 

Someone doesn't get hired due to a criminal record and suddenly its about RACE? Wow....

 

Now why don't they do an investigation like that and see how many times black owned businesses deny White's jobs?

Guarantee you it's a lot higher than that.

 

Evidently white people face problems too.

 

Hilarious!!!! Just the image most company's want to project to their customers!! LOLOL

 

It is certainly a problem- people get out of prison and are expected to support themselves, but arent afforded all the same rights as the rest of the citizenry. The Justice System really needs to be more of a Rehabilitation System. How that would be realiastically accomplished is problematic, but we could certainly do a lot better than we are. All adults allowed to freely be in public should be treated equally. Anyone 'too dangerous' to be treated like everyone else should not be free in public. The whole 'we're gonna let you out but with all these restrictions' only serves to incentivize felons to keep engaging in crime.

 

If a convicted criminal can run for President, I don't think having a criminal history should be held against ANYBODY.

 

And if the business did hire, and something went wrong, the business could be sued because they hired an employee with a criminal past.
Sometimes for millions of dollars.

related thread: Businesses risk being sued either way, whether or not they hire a risky employee (in Law & Justice, July 12, 2024)

 

As long as they have proof they were checking, I am not sure I see an issue here. There are several blacks working at our local Sheetz.

 

According to Jeremy Carl, the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Civil Rights Act has resulted in discrimination against white people. In order to avoid getting sued, employers must hire a certain number of people from minority groups which means that fewer white people get hired (even though they may be more qualified for the job). Of course, if the white applicants find out they've been discriminated against then they can also sue.

 

Voters are free to hold Trump's conviction against him and choose someone else for president. He was targeted for political reasons anyway.

 

What if you are not contrite, blame the law (DOJ) on a conspiracy to get you while continuing to claim your innocence?

Like Hunter? Does that mean he is innocent of all charges?

 

He's guilty of misdemeanors.

 

Not the point. Does that mean charges should not have been filed against the orange sociopath if you believe that?

 

It seems that 5% more white applicants were given a break despite their criminal records, compared to other ethnic groups, triggering the lawsuit. I cannot believe any convicts are allowed to handle cash registers at this convenience store chain. The Sheetz family operates a c-store empire in six states through Sheetz Inc., which is a German-American-owned company.

 

I do not think convicted felon Trump should be allowed to run for President. I think he should be splitting rocks in a prison yard somewhere, while awaiting trials for his remaining three indictments.

 

Everything is about Trump with you people, isn't it?
I do not think someone who wants to make businesses vulnerable to lawsuits, one way or the other, no matter which choice the business makes, should be President.

This just seems like an attack on private businesses, trying to tear them down, and looking for any excuses to be able to squeeze more money out of them. Whether it's really fair to the business or not.

These "workplace discrimination" laws certainly seem to have opened up a whole can of worms those who passed those laws would have never predicted.

That being said, setting the whole race issue aside, and setting aside the issue of those whom we know for certain have committed serious crimes that would be likely to affect the business, I am concerned about unfair employer discrimination due to people being wrongfully convicted of crimes, or having committed some minor crime in the past that arguably should not affect their employment.
But probably I would imagine most of these employment discrimination cases involve repeated drug convictions, where the employer worries it could signal that the employee they are hiring may likely be a drug user. That is in sort of a separate category, which we probably should have a discussion about.