What Is Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks Controversy?

The Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks deals with allegations of race discrimination in their employment process with a special regard to criminal records.

Filed on April 17, 2024 by the EEOC, the case alleges that Sheetz discriminated against its Black, Native American, and multiracial applicants by not considering their circumstances.

The EEOC points out that while only about 8% of white candidates were rejected because of criminal records, the numbers were much higher for minorities: 14. 5% for Black candidates, 13% for Hispanic candidates, and 8% for Asian candidates. For Asian candidates, the pass rate was at 33%, for black candidates it was 11%, for multiracial, 5% and for Native Americans at 13%.

It is asserted that such practices are unlawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks job offers and damages for the applicants who were discriminatorily refused employment.

Role Of Background Check

In Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks, Sheetz states that background checks assist employers by reviewing public records and databases to become acquainted with a job applicant’s criminal history.

This allows them to determine if the person they are interviewing fits the requirements of the post. Personal details, work experience, education certificates, and police record to job applicants remain a common requirement by employers.

They use this in situations like when they have selected employees for employment yet they aren’t hired to avoid discriminating against the employees or being in violation of the law.

Background on Sheetz

Sheetz began in 1952 after Bob Sheetz bought a dairy store from his father in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

At first, they sold milk, eggs, and other dairy items. In the 1960s, they started selling gas and grew to over 100 stores in Pennsylvania by the 1970s.

They then added made-to-order sandwiches, which were very popular. Sheetz kept expanding, opening stores in other states like Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Now, they have over 710 stores in six states, selling fuel, snacks, drinks, and serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Claims of Discrimination

In Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks, The EEOC found that Sheetz’s background check rules unfairly target minority job seekers, especially Black, Native American, and multiracial people.

The lawsuit claims that Sheetz automatically rejects applicants with criminal records, leading to big differences in who gets hired.

Black applicants are turned down 14.5% of the time, Native American applicants 13%, and multiracial applicants 13.5%, while only 8% of white applicants face the same fate.

Legal Framework

In Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks, The EEOC stated that Sheetz had some unjust rules for the background check since it affected minorities mainly those of Black, Native American and multiracial descent.

Sheetz disqualified anyone with a criminal record according to the lawsuit; thus, Hodsdon alleges it is and was META and not Sheetz that hires and offers employment in Sheetz store.

The authors also say that black candidates are rejected 14. Black applicants were at 10% while Native American and multiracial applicants were 13% respectively. 5% while only 8% of the whites get the same outcome.

This indicates that perhaps the policy that Sheetz has set in the hiring of its employees discriminates against minorities since they get arrested more often than the white population and therefore have less chances of being hired.

Sheetz’s Response to the Allegations

Some of the main Anti Discrimination Laws include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII which prevents discrimination with regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin at one’s place of work.

It assists in ensuring that people are equally placed in the market and that no individual will be favored in the place of employment, promotion or dismissal.

Out of it, it developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that ensures the rules are implemented and addresses discrimination cases.

In the Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks, Sheetz is again Prosecuted for violating the provision of Title VII because the company declines the hiring of employees with criminal pasts without analyzing individual circumstances; this is seen to have adverse impact on people of color, Native Americans and those of two or more races because of the high number compared to whites.

The Impact of the Lawsuit on Sheetz

If the EEOC wins its Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks against Sheetz, the company might have to deal with big problems that could make people see it differently and hurt its image.

The EEOC wants Sheetz to give jobs to people who were unfairly turned away, pay them back, and change how it hires to avoid discrimination again.

If Sheetz loses, it might have to change how it checks criminal records and manage hiring better.

The Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks case has made people question if Sheetz really cares about diversity and inclusion, even though it says it does.

If Sheetz loses, it could look worse, especially if it’s found to have unfair hiring practices that affect minorities more.

The Role of Mediation in Employment Disputes

The EEOC mediation process is a way for people to solve work discrimination issues without going through a long court process.

A neutral person helps both sides talk and agree on a solution. This can happen early on after a complaint is made or after an investigation.

However, in the Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks case, the mediation didn’t work because the sides couldn’t agree on the discrimination claims.

The Sheetz Lawsuit Background Checks is a key example of the persistent issues with job discrimination and the need for fair hiring.

It shows the possible outcomes for Sheetz and stresses the importance for all employers to review their background check policies to avoid reinforcing systemic biases.