The convenience store chain Sheetz Inc., where President Joe Biden recently stopped for snacks while campaigning in Pennsylvania, is facing a lawsuit from federal officials for allegedly discriminating against minority job applicants. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Sheetz and two subsidiary companies, accusing them of automatically rejecting Black, Native American, and multiracial job seekers based on criminal background checks. Sheetz has denied these allegations and stated that it does not tolerate discrimination, emphasizing the importance of diversity and inclusion in their hiring practices.
Sheetz, a family-run company with over 700 stores in six states, has more than 23,000 employees and operates convenience stores and gas stations. The lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin. The EEOC does not claim that Sheetz was driven by racial bias, but rather takes issue with the company’s use of criminal background checks in screening job applicants. The agency is seeking to compel Sheetz to offer jobs to unlawfully denied applicants, provide back pay, retroactive seniority, and other benefits.
The EEOC initiated its investigation of Sheetz after receiving complaints of employment discrimination from two job applicants. The agency found that Black applicants were rejected due to criminal history screening at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial and Native American applicants faced denial rates of 13.5% and 13% respectively. In contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were turned down for employment based on a failed criminal background check. The lawsuit alleges that Sheetz’s hiring practices disproportionately impact minority applicants and violate federal civil rights law.
Despite attempts at mediation and collaboration with the EEOC over the past eight years to address the allegations, Sheetz and the agency were unable to reach a resolution, leading to the filing of the lawsuit. The EEOC emphasizes that federal law requires employers to demonstrate the necessity of employment practices causing a disparate impact based on race or other protected characteristics. Even if such necessity is proven, the practice remains unlawful if a comparably effective alternative exists that has a less discriminatory effect. The agency is seeking to remedy the unlawful denial of employment to affected applicants dating back to at least 2015.
It remains unclear how many job applicants have been affected by Sheetz’s discriminatory hiring practices. The EEOC’s lawsuit aims to hold the convenience store chain accountable for its actions and enforce compliance with federal laws against workplace discrimination. The agency is pushing for Sheetz to provide remedies such as job offers, back pay, retroactive seniority, and other benefits to unlawfully denied applicants. By highlighting the disparities in employment outcomes for minority applicants compared to white applicants, the lawsuit seeks to address systemic discrimination in Sheetz’s hiring process.
