ALTOONA, PA – The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an audacious suit against a convenience store chain earlier in April, alleging that the employer was actively engaged in racial discrimination for using criminal background screenings to aid in their hiring practices.
Sheetz, a convenience store chain with hundreds of locations across six states in the Midwest, was hit with an antidiscrimination suit by the EEOC earlier in April, with the federal agency claiming that the company’s use of criminal background checks to weed out job applicants is actually a form of racial discrimination.
According to the press release from the EEOC on April 18, the convenience store chain’s utilization of criminal background checks in their hiring decisions “disproportionately screened out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants,” with the federal agency further opining that factoring in the criminal backgrounds of all job applicants is tantamount to violating “provisions of Title VII that prohibit disparate impact discrimination.”
When looking at the matter by the numbers, the EEOC claims to have found failed criminal background screenings utilized by Sheetz which saw black jobseekers denied employment 14.5% of the time, multiracial applicants denied 13.5% of the time and Native Americans being turned away 13% of the time.
Interestingly enough, the EEOC also found that approximately 8% of White applicants were denied jobs by Sheetz for failed criminal background checks.
To summarize the EEOC’s lawsuit/allegations in the simplest of terms, the federal agency is basically claiming that since certain minorities applying for jobs at Sheetz harbor criminal records more so than their white peers and the company weeds out applicants with various criminal backgrounds, the practice itself is discriminatory.
In short, the federal agency asserts that if a company or entity blanketly disallows convicted criminals from being onboarded for employment, the overall practice equates to racial discrimination regardless of whether the standard is imposed on every applicant irrespective of race.
Where the EEOC draws the fodder for their argument in the suit against Sheetz is none other than a landmark decision from the Supreme Court back in 1971 in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, where the notion of “disparate impact” came into play for a company’s hiring practices.
In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court heard arguments from active or prospective Black employees who were either denied employment or job transfers at Duke Power Company over the requirement of a high school diploma or ability to pass an assessment test. The overall claims made by the plaintiffs in the case were that said requirements weren’t genuinely intended to gauge an applicant’s ability to learn or perform any number of job duties at the plant and that the practice resulted in a disparate impact on black applicants.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument in the case, but the case was also heavily nuanced and pertained to a company that was actively engaged in racial discrimination right up until the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964, only for the company to then introduce the diploma and aptitude test requirements immediately after Title VII came into effect.
Nonetheless, the EEOC believes that any employer’s desire to avoid the hiring of convicted criminals is basically Griggs v. Duke Power Company all over again, which the agency even cites the specific case under their Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions section of their website.
The purpose for employers utilizing criminal background checks when making hiring decisions is fairly obvious to most people, in that it’s an overall effort to mitigate risk. Whether it be apprehensions about potential theft or fraud, a heightened risk of workplace violence, or even concerns about facing lawsuits for negligent hiring in the event of an incident involving a bad onboarding decision – an employer considering an applicant’s criminal background when making hiring decisions is completely reasonable.
Sheetz, a convenience store chain with hundreds of locations across six states in the Midwest, was hit with an antidiscrimination suit by the EEOC earlier in April, with the federal agency claiming that the company’s use of criminal background checks to weed out job applicants is actually a form of racial discrimination.
According to the press release from the EEOC on April 18, the convenience store chain’s utilization of criminal background checks in their hiring decisions “disproportionately screened out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants,” with the federal agency further opining that factoring in the criminal backgrounds of all job applicants is tantamount to violating “provisions of Title VII that prohibit disparate impact discrimination.”
When looking at the matter by the numbers, the EEOC claims to have found failed criminal background screenings utilized by Sheetz which saw black jobseekers denied employment 14.5% of the time, multiracial applicants denied 13.5% of the time and Native Americans being turned away 13% of the time.
Interestingly enough, the EEOC also found that approximately 8% of White applicants were denied jobs by Sheetz for failed criminal background checks.
To summarize the EEOC’s lawsuit/allegations in the simplest of terms, the federal agency is basically claiming that since certain minorities applying for jobs at Sheetz harbor criminal records more so than their white peers and the company weeds out applicants with various criminal backgrounds, the practice itself is discriminatory.
In short, the federal agency asserts that if a company or entity blanketly disallows convicted criminals from being onboarded for employment, the overall practice equates to racial discrimination regardless of whether the standard is imposed on every applicant irrespective of race.
Where the EEOC draws the fodder for their argument in the suit against Sheetz is none other than a landmark decision from the Supreme Court back in 1971 in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, where the notion of “disparate impact” came into play for a company’s hiring practices.
In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court heard arguments from active or prospective Black employees who were either denied employment or job transfers at Duke Power Company over the requirement of a high school diploma or ability to pass an assessment test. The overall claims made by the plaintiffs in the case were that said requirements weren’t genuinely intended to gauge an applicant’s ability to learn or perform any number of job duties at the plant and that the practice resulted in a disparate impact on black applicants.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument in the case, but the case was also heavily nuanced and pertained to a company that was actively engaged in racial discrimination right up until the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964, only for the company to then introduce the diploma and aptitude test requirements immediately after Title VII came into effect.
Nonetheless, the EEOC believes that any employer’s desire to avoid the hiring of convicted criminals is basically Griggs v. Duke Power Company all over again, which the agency even cites the specific case under their Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions section of their website.
The purpose for employers utilizing criminal background checks when making hiring decisions is fairly obvious to most people, in that it’s an overall effort to mitigate risk. Whether it be apprehensions about potential theft or fraud, a heightened risk of workplace violence, or even concerns about facing lawsuits for negligent hiring in the event of an incident involving a bad onboarding decision – an employer considering an applicant’s criminal background when making hiring decisions is completely reasonable.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-04-26T15:00-0500 | Comment by: Daniel
Who will be held accountable when the ex-cons break the law again? Are the State and the Feds hires ex-cons?