Federal regulators recently filed a lawsuit against the popular convenience chain Sheets, which could affect whether the company can review applicants with criminal convictions.
Equal Employment Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) lawsuit announced April 18th. Suspect Mr. Sheets discriminates against minority applicants by screening all job applicants for criminal convictions, which disproportionately targets Black, Native American, and multiracial applicants. He insisted that it would be done. Experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that many companies have already stopped screening employees based on previous guidance or pressure from regulators. (Related: Oil and gas industry may be what makes Biden economy strong on paper despite ‘regulatory attack’)
“The EEOC charges filed against Sheetz are just another example of the left’s protection of a certain class of people,” Allen West, executive director of the American Civil Rights Union, told DCNF. “In this case, the EEOC believes it requires private sector employers to prioritize the Biden administration’s ideological agenda over what they believe is best for their companies and their employees. Sheetz Inc. We reserve every right to screen and refuse consideration to anyone with a criminal record.”
The lawsuit alleges that Sheets violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act under the “disparate influence” clause. This provision, while ostensibly neutral, is the legal idea that rules can cause more harm to certain protected groups than others. The EEOC does not allege that Seat was racially motivated in its selection process for job applicants.
“Federal law requires that employment practices that create a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular job at issue. It requires the employer to show,” said Debra Lawrence, EEOC regional attorney. The District of Philadelphia said in announcing the lawsuit. “Even if such a need is demonstrated, the practice remains unlawful if an alternative practice is available that is more effective in achieving the employer’s goals and has a less discriminatory impact.” .”
Dan Morenoff, an attorney and executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, told the DCNF that he agrees that the lawsuit from the EEOC is harmful, but that federal regulators have taken this position before. It noted that the broader impact may be limited. It already encourages employers to avoid criminal conviction reviews to avoid litigation.
“The most important thing to know here is that the EEOC’s position is twofold: (a) it’s outrageous and destructive; but (b) it’s also new. In theory, they have been taking this position for years,” Morenov told DCNF. “While this is bad policy and bad law, it probably won’t change much in the business world as a whole simply because most companies have already found ways to deal with agency requests. If he insists on his case, there is hope that Mr. Sheets will prevail.The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Muldrow last week reflects the actual text of the law and overturns decades of errors in disparate impact analysis. may have opened the door to reinstating Title VII to eliminate the
In mid-March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that Title VII protects against discriminatory transfers even if the transfers do not result in significant disadvantage. according to In the New York Times. The lawsuit centers on Jatonya Muldrow, an employee of the St. Louis Police Department’s intelligence division who was transferred to another position within the department, retaining the same position and salary but with less lucrative work. It wasn’t given.
The EEOC has long held the opinion that criminal history should not be considered in hiring. issue The 2012 guidance required employers to either exclude consideration of criminal activity or adopt an approach that takes into account the nature of the offense, the time since the offense and the nature of the job being applied for at the time of recruitment.
Joe Biden visits Sheetz (a gas station and convenience store) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania…
Look at everyone’s excitement. 🙄
Compare this to literally where Donald Trump goes…pic.twitter.com/G3yEBnN7AV
— Red Voice Media (@redvoicenews) April 17, 2024
“Sheetz does not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Diversity and inclusion are an integral part of who we are,” Nick Ruffner, PR manager at Sheetz, told DCNF. “We take these allegations seriously. We have been working with the EEOC for nearly eight years to try to find common ground and resolve this dispute. When the time is right, we will seek to resolve this dispute in court. We intend to address the allegations.”
Supporter of Restrict usage of belief Recruitment history argues that screening job applicants for criminal records deprives individuals of employment opportunities and creates bias that limits their ability to successfully reintegrate into society. Several Each state already has its own restrictions on this practice, and so does the federal government. Banned A look at practice in 2019.
The EEOC has gained momentum in recent months since Kalpana Kotagal was confirmed as EEOC commissioner last year, breaking the deadlock on the board and giving Democrats a 3-2 majority. Prior to Kotagal’s confirmation, the commission had stalled on issues including bias against artificial intelligence in hiring, LGBT bathroom guidance, and diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
The EEOC on Monday announced a final rule under the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act that would require employers to provide women with leave to attend and recover from abortion procedures.
“Yes, I believe in reimbursement, but it is not the job of the federal government to jeopardize the safety and security of businesses regardless of the safety of other employees,” West told DCNF. “Last time I checked, you could still be denied entry into the U.S. military if you had a criminal record, certainly drug use or abuse. This once again proves federal government overreach. And last time I checked, there was no enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution under Article II of the Executive Branch to compel employers to hire individuals with criminal records. It’s all about fairness, equality of outcome, and looking at people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.”
The EEOC and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from DCNF.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or our partnership, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
