Federal Lawsuit Targets Sheetz Over Alleged Racial Discrimination In Hiring Practices Since 2015

Pennsylvania-based convenience store chain Sheetz is under scrutiny following a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

The suit accuses Sheetz of employing racially discriminatory hiring practices through its criminal background screening process, affecting Black, American Indian and multiracial job candidates since at least 2015.

Disproportionate Impact on Minority Applicants

According to the lawsuit, Sheetz’s hiring practices have disproportionately screened out minority applicants. 

Statistics reveal that while white applicants were denied employment due to their criminal records in about 8% of cases, the denial rates for Black applicants were significantly higher at 14.5%. 

Similarly, American Indian/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants faced rejection rates of 13% and 13.5%.

Sheetz’s Response and Legal Implications

Sheetz has responded to the allegations, asserting a commitment to non-discrimination and efforts to resolve the dispute with the EEOC over nearly eight years. 

Nick Ruffner, a spokesperson for Sheetz, said the company has been working with the EEOC for nearly eight years “to find common ground and resolve this dispute.” 

Ruffner said the company is taking the allegations seriously.

However, the EEOC maintains that the company’s policies cause a disparate impact on racial grounds, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

The lawsuit aims to force Sheetz to overhaul its hiring procedures, implement equal employment policies, and compensate affected applicants.

“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,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. 

“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.”