USA 
United Kingdom
Maryland-based Sheetz locations have come under fire as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleges that the company has disproportionately screened out American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and multiracial applicants during the hiring process.
According to a complaint filed by the agency on April 17, the company maintained a “longstanding practice” of screening out candidates due to prior involvement with the justice system, “including but not limited to convictions.”
The conduct, according to the EEOC, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment practices that cause a discriminatory impact because of race when those practices are not job-related and consistent with business necessity, or when alternative practices with less discriminatory impact are available.
The lawsuit alleged that Black candidates experienced a "significant disparate impact" from the employer’s criminal justice history probe, as, per the EEOC, they comprised a "disproportionately high number of the total number of job applicants whom Defendants have refused to hire."
According to court documents, the background check vendor keeps records of its screenings. The document noted that Black job applicants failed the screenings at a rate greater than 14.5%, Indigenous candidates failed at a rate of 13%, and multiracial candidates failed at about a 13.5% rate—whereas White applicants failed at a rate below eight per cent.
Notably, this claim comes in April, which is Second Chance Hiring Month as noted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
For employers interested in hiring qualified workers with criminal records, talent experts offer a few best practices for second-chance hiring.
“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 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.”
In a statement, Sheetz said it “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”
“We take these allegations seriously. We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute. We will address the claims in Court when the time comes,” Nick Ruffner, PR Manager for Sheetz, said in a statement.
The EEOC said the case is going to court after failing to reach a pre-litigation settlement.
The alleged illegal hiring practices have taken place in Maryland since at least 2015, the lawsuit said.
