Sheetz hit with federal discrimination lawsuit

[mike]

A sizeable chain of convenience stores headquartered in my area has been hit with a federal discrimination suit. I am trying to make sense of this.

A convenience store chain where President Joe Biden stopped for snacks this week while campaigning in Pennsylvania 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.

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.

Is the federal government saying that since more black and multiracial persons that applied to Sheetz had criminal backgrounds than white persons and thus were automatically denied employment at greater rates than white persons were? I was not aware it is illegal to discriminate based on failing a background check at least in Pennsylvania. Is this lawsuit saying that because in EFFECT their policy caused more people of color not to be considered for employment, it is illegal even though denying people employment based on criminal background IS legal? What kind of twisted logic is this?

[mike]

This is of particular interest because we do background checks for prospective employees at my business. We don't automatically disqualify them for failing them, but I wonder why such a policy would subject one to a discrimination suit just because it disproportionately affects people of color. Why would that be Sheetz' fault?

[ken_sylvania]

This is of particular interest because we do background checks for prospective employees at my business. We don't automatically disqualify them for failing them, but I wonder why such a policy would subject one to a discrimination suit just because it disproportionately affects people of color. Why would that be Sheetz' fault?

I think the government's position is that Sheetz hasn't shown that it has good reason to refuse to hire people with a criminal background.

Think about it this way - the law doesn't say that it is illegal to discriminate against people due to hair color. Suppose Sheetz were to implement a policy whereby they refused to hire people with tight, curly black hair because the managers want all their employees to have hair long enough to do a combover. If this would affect all races and genders equally, this would probably be legal, but since this policy would reject Blacks more often than Whites or Hispanics, it would be illegal. The government's contention is that in this case the criminal background check has no valid purpose and is disproportionately affecting minorities - therefore illegal.

[Ken]

The thing to remember about companies such as Sheetz is that they do all of their job applications online through web forms. All similar big retail companies do the same. No human is actually reading or doing the first screen of applications.

Apparently Sheetz set up a data screen that automatically excluded everyone who failed some sort of automatic background check and so none of those people ever made it to the next stage of the screening process where they would actually get interviewed or looked at by a real person. The government is claiming that the effect of this automatic data screen was discriminatory because it had a disproportionate effect on minority candidates. Which is, in fact, true since arrests for petty violations do disproportionately happen to both minorities and the poor.

Sheetz would have been fine if they had taken individual looks at each application before rejecting. So, for example, people who maybe failed a background check because they got picked up by the police for truancy when they were 15 get a second look whereas someone convicted of multiple felonies for armed robbery would not. But since it was the computers doing the rejections automatically and not a person, that sort of considered evaluation never happened and the government is suing.

[ken_sylvania]

This is of particular interest because we do background checks for prospective employees at my business. We don't automatically disqualify them for failing them, but I wonder why such a policy would subject one to a discrimination suit just because it disproportionately affects people of color. Why would that be Sheetz' fault?

I think current recommendations are to (1) have a written policy on what will actually constitute "failing" a background check, including valid rationale, and (2) never do a background check until you are ready to make an offer of employment (so that the offer will be rescinded only if the background check reveals good reason to not move forward).

Valid reasons for what would constitute failing the background check would vary depending on the job description. For instance, a ten-year-old conviction for bank robbery would probably be valid reason to not hire someone as Treasurer, but might not be good reason to refuse to hire that person as a laborer on a road construction crew.

[Ken]

This is of particular interest because we do background checks for prospective employees at my business. We don't automatically disqualify them for failing them, but I wonder why such a policy would subject one to a discrimination suit just because it disproportionately affects people of color. Why would that be Sheetz' fault?

I think the government's position is that Sheetz hasn't shown that it has good reason to refuse to hire people with a criminal background.

Think about it this way - the law doesn't say that it is illegal to discriminate against people due to hair color. Suppose Sheetz were to implement a policy whereby they refused to hire people with tight, curly black hair because the managers want all their employees to have hair long enough to do a combover. If this would affect all races and genders equally, this would probably be legal, but since this policy would reject Blacks more often than Whites or Hispanics, it would be illegal. The government's contention is that in this case the criminal background check has no valid purpose and is disproportionately affecting minorities - therefore illegal.

I think it is more nuanced than that. Criminal background checks do serve a purpose and an employer can use them in making a considered rejection of an applicant. What the government is saying it is discriminatory to make the criminal background check an automated computerized data screening tool without any humans actually looking at the applicant and considering whether the applicant still merits consideration. Because the effect of doing so disproportionately affects poor and minority applicants. For whom the criminal justice system is historically more punitive. And whose communities are much more intensely policed.

Put another way, a poor Black kid in the inner city may live exactly the same life as a middle class white kid in the suburbs but will have many many more interactions with the police and criminal justice system growing up simply due to his race and socioeconomic status. And, is therefore, much more likely to have some sort of police record for living the same exact life. This has been extensively documented across the country.

[mike]

The thing to remember about companies such as Sheetz is that they do all of their job applications online through web forms. All similar big retail companies do the same. No human is actually reading or doing the first screen of applications.

Apparently Sheetz set up a data screen that automatically excluded everyone who failed some sort of automatic background check and so none of those people ever made it to the next stage of the screening process where they would actually get interviewed or looked at by a real person. The government is claiming that the effect of this automatic data screen was discriminatory because it had a disproportionate effect on minority candidates. Which is, in fact, true since arrests for petty violations do disproportionately happen to both minorities and the poor.

Sheetz would have been fine if they had taken individual looks at each application before rejecting. So, for example, people who maybe failed a background check because they got picked up by the police for truancy when they were 15 get a second look whereas someone convicted of multiple felonies for armed robbery would not. But since it was the computers doing the rejections automatically and not a person, that sort of considered evaluation never happened and the government is suing.

If that's all it was, one would wonder why Sheetz would not have felt it worthwhile to calibrate its screening process rather than subject itself to a federal lawsuit. The suit apparently was no surprise, coming after a couple of years of trying to work something out.

[Ken]

The thing to remember about companies such as Sheetz is that they do all of their job applications online through web forms. All similar big retail companies do the same. No human is actually reading or doing the first screen of applications.

Apparently Sheetz set up a data screen that automatically excluded everyone who failed some sort of automatic background check and so none of those people ever made it to the next stage of the screening process where they would actually get interviewed or looked at by a real person. The government is claiming that the effect of this automatic data screen was discriminatory because it had a disproportionate effect on minority candidates. Which is, in fact, true since arrests for petty violations do disproportionately happen to both minorities and the poor.

Sheetz would have been fine if they had taken individual looks at each application before rejecting. So, for example, people who maybe failed a background check because they got picked up by the police for truancy when they were 15 get a second look whereas someone convicted of multiple felonies for armed robbery would not. But since it was the computers doing the rejections automatically and not a person, that sort of considered evaluation never happened and the government is suing.

If that's all it was, one would wonder why Sheetz would not have felt it worthwhile to calibrate its screening process rather than subject itself to a federal lawsuit. The suit apparently was no surprise, coming after a couple of years of trying to work something out.

I don't know if that is all it is. But I'm pretty sure that that is all that the law requires.

We are talking about Federal law here, not state law. Some states like CA have more restrictive regulations for how background checks can be used in the hiring process. But this is a Federal case in PA so it is Federal law not state law that is at question.

It sounds like it is just a big company not wanting to change how they do business because it will cost them more money. And potentially give more discretion to local managers which they may be loath to do.

[ken_sylvania]

The thing to remember about companies such as Sheetz is that they do all of their job applications online through web forms. All similar big retail companies do the same. No human is actually reading or doing the first screen of applications.

Apparently Sheetz set up a data screen that automatically excluded everyone who failed some sort of automatic background check and so none of those people ever made it to the next stage of the screening process where they would actually get interviewed or looked at by a real person. The government is claiming that the effect of this automatic data screen was discriminatory because it had a disproportionate effect on minority candidates. Which is, in fact, true since arrests for petty violations do disproportionately happen to both minorities and the poor.

Sheetz would have been fine if they had taken individual looks at each application before rejecting. So, for example, people who maybe failed a background check because they got picked up by the police for truancy when they were 15 get a second look whereas someone convicted of multiple felonies for armed robbery would not. But since it was the computers doing the rejections automatically and not a person, that sort of considered evaluation never happened and the government is suing.

If that's all it was, one would wonder why Sheetz would not have felt it worthwhile to calibrate its screening process rather than subject itself to a federal lawsuit. The suit apparently was no surprise, coming after a couple of years of trying to work something out.

I don't know if that is all it is. But I'm pretty sure that that is all that the law requires.

We are talking about Federal law here, not state law. Some states like CA have more restrictive regulations for how background checks can be used in the hiring process. But this is a Federal case in PA so it is Federal law not state law that is at question.

It sounds like it is just a big company not wanting to change how they do business because it will cost them more money. And potentially give more discretion to local managers which they may be loath to do.

I don't think that the current EEOC cares whether or not Sheetz is compliant with what Federal law currently requires. I think their goal here is to tighten the restrictions on what is considered acceptable use of background checks. The current administration hasn't been shy about that being one of their goals.

[Ken]

If that's all it was, one would wonder why Sheetz would not have felt it worthwhile to calibrate its screening process rather than subject itself to a federal lawsuit. The suit apparently was no surprise, coming after a couple of years of trying to work something out.

I don't know if that is all it is. But I'm pretty sure that that is all that the law requires.

We are talking about Federal law here, not state law. Some states like CA have more restrictive regulations for how background checks can be used in the hiring process. But this is a Federal case in PA so it is Federal law not state law that is at question.

It sounds like it is just a big company not wanting to change how they do business because it will cost them more money. And potentially give more discretion to local managers which they may be loath to do.

I don't think that the current EEOC cares whether or not Sheetz is compliant with what Federal law currently requires. I think their goal here is to tighten the restrictions on what is considered acceptable use of background checks. The current administration hasn't been shy about that being one of their goals.

If that is the case then the Feds will lose this lawsuit.

One simply can't tighten up Federal regulations because a certain director of an agency wants to do so. They have to go through ordinary notice and comment rulemaking which is a defined process and takes a lot of time. Usually years unless it is an emergency action.

They might decide to start enforcing an existing regulation that the previous administration wasn't enforcing. But that is a different thing.