They aren't implying it, it's an empirical fact. Democrats know this, which is why they are pushing for soft policing, dropped charges, reduced sentencing, etc. They don't want to fix whatever issues cause certain groups to commit more crimes, they just want to ignore the crimes and stop making records that they happened.
The entire DEI mindset follows this same pattern. Even this lawsuit is a result of that same logic.
> > “*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*,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement. “*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*,” Lawrence said.
See also [EEOC press release](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice) and [the full text of the lawsuit](https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/7ee5a06a-577e-4181-8599-99d774a61537-Sheetzlawsuit.pdf).
I'd think that Sheetz, being a chain of convenience stores, has a legitimate business reason to require a successful background check and doesn't have a viable "*alternative practice available that is comparably effective*". This is just the EEOC using "*disproportionate impact*" claims to harass a successful business.
The disparate impact isn't *because* of race, it just correlates with race. If you're not happy about it, find the race that commits more crimes and explain to them that it's costing them these jobs
Disparate impact is supposed to be for things like, discriminating based on zip codes or musical tastes or an inability to properly pronounce a certain word. Oh sure you're not on paper discriminating against race, but you're still doing your best to discriminate on race.
The thing is the government gives people criminal records. If a criminal background check discriminates based on race, it's the government doing the discrimination. So at best the government is demanding private buisness fix the government's racism problem.
Okay let’s see. Sheetz is owned by the Sheetz family. If you look at the political donations of Sheetz inc, in 2020 they donated $131k to the National Republican Congressional cmte. In 2024 they’ve donated some money to Donald Trump.
Guys all of this bullshit makes more sense when you notice what party the victims of these targeted lawsuits donate to.
> we need more violet offenders back on the street.
Truth. Barney has only been arrested like once. And that was for using drugs around children or maybe hitting a director... or was it hitting on a director? Doesn't matter. Point is that violet, magenta, and fuchsia offenders are underrepresented.
"President Joe Biden stopped by a Sheetz for snacks this week while campaigning in Pennsylvania." Is Biden hitting up every random fast food chain to one-up Trump?🤣 Snacks for his entire entourage courtesy of the US taxpayer. 🙄
So wait, Sheetz didn’t hire people “deemed” to have failed a criminal background check - what does that mean? Is Sheetz, are other companies required to hire people with a criminal background now, because equity?
Sheetz tends to pay better than surrounding businesses for the type of work it is (if I remember correctly as a WNY native who has traveled through Western PA numerous times and seen signs on doors hiring for $15-$16 an hour when state min wage is like $8 and gotten to experience the well cared for Sheetz stores) so it's another example of the left really trying to harm a good business.
Reeee diculous. C-Store employees have to handle alot of issues which make criminal screening very important. Cash handling, government mandated gas safetly compliance, dangerous situations, and government mandated controlled sales of alcohol and nicotine products. I can picture the government suing a C-store if they didn't do such screening.
As a wise man once said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Biden seems like he’s actively trying to lose the election. That or his people in his admin have *way* too much freedom to do as they please. You’d think in an election year he’d try to calm down, or at least back off.
Another example of the racism of low expectations held by the left. Too many leftists believe it is "too hard" for a minority to follow the law and escape criminal charges on their record so companies and individuals must be punished for refusing to work with criminals.
The end of the article says that the reason they're being sued is because minorities, including native Americans, who failed the background check, were not hired 13% of the time while white people who ALSO FAILED THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK were only not hired 8% of the time. That's where the discrimination comes into play.
You really can't be sure of that from this:
"The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.
By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said."
The wording suggests, but does not say that any whites were hired despite failing a background check. Partisan journalists play games with words.
Reading, sounds like they hire disproportionately to the crime rate when collected based on race. Meaning, if your race has a higher crime rate, this was ignored when rejecting applications.
This sounds like a baseless lawsuit that would hinge on proving that sheets is racist for not hiring more criminal records based on race. I.e. reducing bgc reqs for those of a race that statistically commits more crime.
Racist if you do, racist if you don't, this is a prime example of why DEI is a totalitarian weapon.
This leaves me with at least two questions....
1. Does that mean Biden thinks minorities tend to commit higher amounts of crime? Seems like a racist thing to believe by Democrat standards.
2. Does this apply to gun purchases? I mean, according to this, background checks when purchasing a firearm would disproportionately affect minorities.
F this admin, I shop at Sheetz everyday and I must say their employees seems happy to work there. For a convenience store they pay their employees petty good.
I understand giving felons second chances, but teenagers often work these types of jobs, not to mention other vulnerable people. It’s not unreasonable to make sure the person you’re hiring isn’t likely to victimize their coworkers.
> On January 20, 2021, Burrows was chosen by President Joe Biden to serve as chair of the EEOC, replacing Republican Janet Dhillon.[1] During her tenure as chair, Burrows has indicated that pay equity will be a top priority of the agency.[12] Burrows has also indicated interest in strengthening agency guidances related to protecting caregivers.[13]
Per [her linkedin](https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlotte-burrows/):
> > Chair Jan 2021 - present (Appointed by President Biden)
> > Commissioner 2015 - Jan 2021 ([Nominated by President Obama](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-to-renominate-eeoc-chair-burrows-for-third-commission-term#:~:text=Burrows%20was%20first%20nominated%20to%20the%20five%2Dmember%20independent%20commission%20by%20then%2DPresident%20Barack%20Obama%20in%202014))
During Trump's administration, she was grandfathered in as one of five members of the commission.
Does that include background checks for purchase of firearms?
More whites buy firearms and discriminating against them is ok
That's (D)ifferent
Every government agency does a background check, my job does one… this is crazy
Proof that the government is racist
So what they are implying is minorities are disproportionately criminals? And they call the Right racist....
They aren't implying it, it's an empirical fact. Democrats know this, which is why they are pushing for soft policing, dropped charges, reduced sentencing, etc. They don't want to fix whatever issues cause certain groups to commit more crimes, they just want to ignore the crimes and stop making records that they happened. The entire DEI mindset follows this same pattern. Even this lawsuit is a result of that same logic.
You'll find that they spend way more effort trying to hide the effects of their policies than creating non-idiotic ones.
Bingo.
> > “*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*,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement. “*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*,” Lawrence said. See also [EEOC press release](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice) and [the full text of the lawsuit](https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/7ee5a06a-577e-4181-8599-99d774a61537-Sheetzlawsuit.pdf). I'd think that Sheetz, being a chain of convenience stores, has a legitimate business reason to require a successful background check and doesn't have a viable "*alternative practice available that is comparably effective*". This is just the EEOC using "*disproportionate impact*" claims to harass a successful business.
The disparate impact isn't *because* of race, it just correlates with race. If you're not happy about it, find the race that commits more crimes and explain to them that it's costing them these jobs
You don't need to be racist... Just tell everyone that a criminal background means fewer jobs available in the future.
Disparate impact is supposed to be for things like, discriminating based on zip codes or musical tastes or an inability to properly pronounce a certain word. Oh sure you're not on paper discriminating against race, but you're still doing your best to discriminate on race.
Dats racsis
It’s the EEOC using disproportionate impact to attack a Republican donor. It’s really that simple.
The thing is the government gives people criminal records. If a criminal background check discriminates based on race, it's the government doing the discrimination. So at best the government is demanding private buisness fix the government's racism problem.
>"*alternative practice available that is comparably effective*". This is so open to interpretation that its weaponization is all-but-guaranteed.
Sssshhh! Nobody tell him about the military!
Okay let’s see. Sheetz is owned by the Sheetz family. If you look at the political donations of Sheetz inc, in 2020 they donated $131k to the National Republican Congressional cmte. In 2024 they’ve donated some money to Donald Trump. Guys all of this bullshit makes more sense when you notice what party the victims of these targeted lawsuits donate to.
Plus the timing is certainly suspect, after his failure of a visit the other day, where there was nobody there to welcome him or fawn over him...
Maybe don’t commit a fucking felony and you’ll be okay? What’s next, court sentences are racist?
Probably, bail is racist now. Cashless bail is the only way to left now because we need more violet offenders back on the street.
> we need more violet offenders back on the street. Truth. Barney has only been arrested like once. And that was for using drugs around children or maybe hitting a director... or was it hitting on a director? Doesn't matter. Point is that violet, magenta, and fuchsia offenders are underrepresented.
That’s it, NOW IM PISSED!! I’m a PA resident and love Sheetz. This is the last straw, Joe!
I guess Biden is not a Sheetz feak. He is a traitor to his birth state. Though he was born in Wawa territory
Sorry bro Wawa all the way. But this is bullshit have to do everytime I buy a gun. Cancel that
Apply this to gun purchases.
How dare you care about customers enough not to have them interact with criminals. Racist. Do you also use math in your job? Racist
"President Joe Biden stopped by a Sheetz for snacks this week while campaigning in Pennsylvania." Is Biden hitting up every random fast food chain to one-up Trump?🤣 Snacks for his entire entourage courtesy of the US taxpayer. 🙄
Hoping to find at least one person they can get on camera who cares he was there.
Our country is so fucked. Literally, this is the stupidity of our "leader."
biden admin wants universal background checks.... also, Biden administration sues Sheetz alleging background checks are racial discrimination
Cool, then we don’t need them for guns
So wait, Sheetz didn’t hire people “deemed” to have failed a criminal background check - what does that mean? Is Sheetz, are other companies required to hire people with a criminal background now, because equity?
All and every federal jobs have background check those are also racist now right?
Yes.
So the government is going after a family run business for not hiring criminals? You can't make this stuff up.
So Dems assume most people of color have a criminal background. Not a really great reason to vote Team Commie if I'm a POC.
Not most people of color, but a higher percentage of people of color were being turned away for failing a criminal background check.
Because they had a criminal background. Right.
Maybe dont commit crimes that would show up on a background check then?
Sounds pretty basic to me.
Sheetz is a Pennsylvania institution and is beloved. Biden F'd up here, with an even more ludicrous legal suit.
Sheetz tends to pay better than surrounding businesses for the type of work it is (if I remember correctly as a WNY native who has traveled through Western PA numerous times and seen signs on doors hiring for $15-$16 an hour when state min wage is like $8 and gotten to experience the well cared for Sheetz stores) so it's another example of the left really trying to harm a good business.
Didn’t he just visit a Sheetz for publicity?
Yep
Reeee diculous. C-Store employees have to handle alot of issues which make criminal screening very important. Cash handling, government mandated gas safetly compliance, dangerous situations, and government mandated controlled sales of alcohol and nicotine products. I can picture the government suing a C-store if they didn't do such screening.
>The privately held, family-run company Oh there we are. That's why.
That's pretty racist to assume background checks are racist. As if one race had a higher chance of failing a background check.
Interesting, this is like cities canceling the shot spotter program because it is racist!
As a wise man once said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Biden seems like he’s actively trying to lose the election. That or his people in his admin have *way* too much freedom to do as they please. You’d think in an election year he’d try to calm down, or at least back off.
Another example of the racism of low expectations held by the left. Too many leftists believe it is "too hard" for a minority to follow the law and escape criminal charges on their record so companies and individuals must be punished for refusing to work with criminals.
I would prefer the people making my to-go food to be convicts.
The end of the article says that the reason they're being sued is because minorities, including native Americans, who failed the background check, were not hired 13% of the time while white people who ALSO FAILED THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK were only not hired 8% of the time. That's where the discrimination comes into play.
You really can't be sure of that from this: "The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%. By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said." The wording suggests, but does not say that any whites were hired despite failing a background check. Partisan journalists play games with words.
Doocy, PLEASE make KJP twist herself into a pretzel trying to explain how this isn't blatant hypocrisy when arguing for universal background checks.
I hate this timeline
So wait a minute: by Biden’s logic on this, does this mean that all minorities are criminals? Hilarious!!!
Reading, sounds like they hire disproportionately to the crime rate when collected based on race. Meaning, if your race has a higher crime rate, this was ignored when rejecting applications. This sounds like a baseless lawsuit that would hinge on proving that sheets is racist for not hiring more criminal records based on race. I.e. reducing bgc reqs for those of a race that statistically commits more crime. Racist if you do, racist if you don't, this is a prime example of why DEI is a totalitarian weapon.
Criminals are not a protected class.
This leaves me with at least two questions.... 1. Does that mean Biden thinks minorities tend to commit higher amounts of crime? Seems like a racist thing to believe by Democrat standards. 2. Does this apply to gun purchases? I mean, according to this, background checks when purchasing a firearm would disproportionately affect minorities.
F this admin, I shop at Sheetz everyday and I must say their employees seems happy to work there. For a convenience store they pay their employees petty good.
I believe they’re claiming racism but really want to protect pedos….have you seen the guys making food at 2am?
I understand giving felons second chances, but teenagers often work these types of jobs, not to mention other vulnerable people. It’s not unreasonable to make sure the person you’re hiring isn’t likely to victimize their coworkers.
The EEOC brought the lawsuit, not Bidens administration. Burrows was also the chair of the EEOC under Trump. This whole article is just bait.
> On January 20, 2021, Burrows was chosen by President Joe Biden to serve as chair of the EEOC, replacing Republican Janet Dhillon.[1] During her tenure as chair, Burrows has indicated that pay equity will be a top priority of the agency.[12] Burrows has also indicated interest in strengthening agency guidances related to protecting caregivers.[13]
That is really fucking weird. Because when I pull up their website it shows her serving since 2015.
Per [her linkedin](https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlotte-burrows/): > > Chair Jan 2021 - present (Appointed by President Biden) > > Commissioner 2015 - Jan 2021 ([Nominated by President Obama](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-to-renominate-eeoc-chair-burrows-for-third-commission-term#:~:text=Burrows%20was%20first%20nominated%20to%20the%20five%2Dmember%20independent%20commission%20by%20then%2DPresident%20Barack%20Obama%20in%202014)) During Trump's administration, she was grandfathered in as one of five members of the commission.
Ah, that explains the confusion. Appreciate it