Imagine this: you’ve paid your dues, served your time, and now you’re ready to reintegrate into society. You apply for a job at Sheetz, a popular convenience store chain. But despite your qualifications, you’re turned away because of your criminal record. Now, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is stepping in, alleging that Sheetz’s hiring practices are having an unfair racial impact.
The EEOC is taking Sheetz to court over its alleged practice of denying employment to applicants with criminal records. The lawsuit claims that this policy disproportionately affects black, Native American, and multiracial applicants – a clear violation of federal law which prohibits hiring practices that negatively impact minorities.
Interestingly enough, the EEOC isn’t accusing Sheetz of intentional discrimination. However, they do argue that the company’s hiring policy is indirectly causing racial disparities. As stated by the EEOC: “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.”
In response to these allegations, Sheetz has highlighted its efforts towards promoting diversity and resolving the dispute with the EEOC which has been ongoing for nearly eight years. “Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are,” company spokesman Nick Ruffner said. “We take these allegations seriously.”
Adding to the intrigue, President Biden visited a Sheetz location on the same day the lawsuit was announced. This raises questions about whether he was aware of the racial discrimination claim against the company by his own administration.
The EEOC’s ultimate aim is to force Sheetz to offer jobs and back pay to those who were denied work due to their criminal background check policy. They argue that if an employer’s practices cause a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications, it must be shown that these practices are necessary for safe and efficient job performance. Even then, if there is an alternative practice available that achieves the same goals but with less discriminatory effect, the original practice remains unlawful.
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence said: “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.”
This case underscores our nation’s commitment to reintegrating individuals with criminal records into society by ensuring they have fair access to employment and other essential services. As Jamie R. Williamson, EEOC Philadelphia District Office Director stated: “This highlights the significance of observing April as Second Chance Month.”
Source: Newsroom
Leave a Comment