On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint in the Maryland District against Sheetz, Inc. and its related entities. The lawsuit further argues that beginning August 10, 2015, the defendant has violated Title VII.
The violation involved engaging in discriminatory hiring practices against Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial job applicants. These discriminatory practices were based on their criminal history records.
Do you want to learn more about the Sheetz lawsuit background checks? Stick around with us in this article.
Allegations on Discriminatory Practices
The EEOC contends that criminal background checks have disproportionately excluded several applicants from these protected groups. Specifically, Black applicants were rejected for employment at a rate exceeding 14.5%. In comparison, American Indian/Alaska Native applicants faced a rejection rate of over 13%.
In addition, multiracial applicants experienced a rejection rate higher than 13.5%. On the other hand, white applicants were rejected at a rate below 8% during the same period. This practice mirrors greater criminal justice statistics. It is stated that Black and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at higher rates than White individuals.
It is reported that the EEOC’s lawsuit centers around Sheetz’s criminal background screening process. Conducted through a third-party vendor, this process is claimed to have a disparate impact on minority applicants. Moreover, the EEOC contends that Sheetz’s practices are neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Furthermore, the EEOC argues that less discriminatory alternatives are available.
Consequently, the EEOC seeks injunctive measures to stop the allegedly discriminatory practices of Sheetz. The relief demanded also includes the development of measures to provide equitable job opportunities. The relief sought also includes back pay and prejudgment interest for applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory practices.
Deficiencies in Hiring Policies
The EEOC complaint raises several complaints about Sheetz’s hiring practice. They include that the company does not require decision-makers to contact applicants for additional information before rejecting them based on criminal history, nor is there any managerial review of employment denials mandated. Briefly, specific reasons for denial are not communicated in writing.
In fact, they are only communicated verbally, and there is no process by which applicants can appeal or seek reconsideration of the decisions. “All these deficiencies, along with the others above, the EEOC says bolster its case against Sheetz.”
Sheetz’s Response
According to CNN, Sheetz employs over 20,000 individuals across more than 700 store locations in multiple states. In reaction to the lawsuit, it has pointed out its internal policy against discrimination and said it is willing to contest the claims before a court of law. Nick Ruffner, the PR manager at Sheetz, indicated that his firm had tried to settle the dispute with the EEOC for almost eight years before the filing of the lawsuit.
Broader Implications
The EEOC’s decision to file the lawsuit occurred after attempts to reach a pre-litigation settlement had been unsuccessful. According to a 2022 study conducted by the non-profit research company RAND Corporation, the case highlighted one of the historical hurdles produced by criminal records. Such an impasse produces one of the historical hurdles to employment.
This study indicates that over half of jobless men in their 30s have a record of criminal conviction or arrest, negatively influencing their full integration into the labor force. Minority groups—out of proportionally incarcerated when compared to Whites—are most affected by actions such as these
Although the lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz rejected applicants based on race, it alleges that the company’s practice had a substantial disparate impact on minority groups. As EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence explained, an employer’s practice is still illegal if less discriminatory alternatives are available even if it is job-related.
Though the guidance from the EEOC in the past suggests individualized assessment should be conducted before making hiring decisions against a person’s criminal record, this guideline is not legally binding.
Read also: Kansas Tint Laws
Conclusion
Finally, the prudent employer will want to consult with their freedom-of-information counsel to review and consider revising the employer’s hiring policies and practices in light of these broad allegations in the EEOC’s complaint. Specifically, the ruling, U.S. EEOC v. Sheetz, Inc., et al., Civil Action Number 1:24-cv-01123-JKB, in this District of Maryland is significant for Retail Employers. Consequently, this would prune how those employers conduct criminal background checks and treat associated hiring policies and practices.