EEOC Sues Sheetz Over Criminal Record Screening, Raising Concerns for Businesses
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched a lawsuit against popular convenience chain Sheetz, arguing that the company’s criminal record screening practices disproportionately impact minority applicants. The EEOC alleges that Sheetz’s screening process violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by creating a “disparate impact” on protected groups such as Black, Native American, and multiracial individuals.
According to the EEOC, Sheetz’s hiring practices are not necessary for the safe and efficient performance of the jobs being applied for and that there are alternative practices that are equally effective but have less discriminatory effects. However, the EEOC does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by racial bias in its screening process.
The lawsuit raises concerns for businesses across the country, as many have already stopped screening employees based on criminal convictions due to earlier guidance and pressure from regulators. Experts suggest that the EEOC’s suit could further incentivize employers to avoid criminal conviction screening to avoid potential lawsuits.
Legal Experts Express Concerns
Legal experts have expressed mixed reactions to the EEOC’s lawsuit. Allen West, executive director of the American Civil Rights Union, criticized the suit, arguing that it forces private sector employers to prioritize the Biden administration’s ideological agenda over the best interests of their companies and employees. He believes that Sheetz has the right to screen applications and deny consideration to those with criminal backgrounds.
On the other hand, Dan Morenoff, lawyer and executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, agrees that the EEOC’s stance on criminal record screening is harmful. However, he points out that its broader effect may be limited because federal regulators have taken this position before, leading employers to avoid screening for criminal convictions to avoid lawsuits.
Previous Rulings and Guidance
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in mid-March in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that Title VII protected against discriminatory job transfers even if the transfer did not create a significant disadvantage. The EEOC has long held the opinion that the use of criminal history should not be a factor when hiring and issued guidance in 2012 asking employers to either exclude criminal conduct considerations or use an approach that takes into account the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the conduct, and the nature of the job being applied for.
Political Commentary
In a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation, West expressed his belief that the federal government should not risk the safety and security of employees by forcing employers to hire individuals with criminal backgrounds. He argues that the EEOC’s lawsuit is an example of government overreach and that employers have the right to make hiring decisions based on the content of an individual’s character, not the color of their skin.
The EEOC and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
