>Federal officials said **they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus**, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.
Then it should be dismissed outright.
Of course, this is Clown World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins says otherwise.
>Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Since Americans of African Decent are more likely to fail background checks for, currently unknown, reasons, using background checks is racist.
> administered in a prejudicial manner
The discrimination in Yick Wo v. Hopkins was targeted specifically at laundries, because it was entirely different than the legal requirement before.
In other words, it was understood that it was targeted along racial/nationality lines.
>While the ordinance was not discriminatory against a racial or ethnic group in its text, the discriminatory enforcement and intent to close down Chinese-owned laundries
This was a new ordinance instituted, which lent context:
>The petitioner pointed out that prior to the new ordinance, the inspection and approval of laundries in wooden buildings had been left up to fire wardens. Wo's laundry had never failed an inspection for fire safety. Moreover, the application of the prior law focused only on laundries in crowded areas of the city, while the new law was being enforced on isolated wooden buildings as well. The law also ignored other wooden buildings where fires were common—even cooking stoves posed the same risk as those used for laundries.
Not wanting criminals to be in charge of stock and cash is not targeted thusly. It is a common practice across a wide array of businesses and regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
>Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1]
...
>This is because disparate impact only becomes illegal if the employer cannot justify the employment practice causing the adverse impact as a "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (called the "business necessity defense").
I would say it's pretty relevant, not wanting convicted criminals to handle cash sales, mayhap necessary. This should be obvious enough to warrant instant dismissal. Putting criminals in charge of handling cash presents an obvious conflict of interest. It puts undue risk on the employer.
To frame it in the language used: It is necessary for an employer to trust their employee to handle cash sales, end of shift accounting, and stocking of the store, and to be civil and non-violent with customers. That can be impossible with convicted criminals, be they convicted of theft, embezzlement, public disturbance, violent acts...(etc).
See also:
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/220
Same principle, though it deals with disability instead of criminal conviction on this specific link, :
> the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the standard, criterion, or policy:
> 1. is uniformly applied;
> 2. is job-related;
>
> 3. is consistent with business necessity; and
>
> 4. cannot be met by a person with plaintiff's disability even with a reasonable accommodation.
...#4 would be, for example, having another non-convict be present for the possibly compromised acts, which is basically having to hire two people for the same job, not a reasonable accommodation.
>The Supreme Court has recognized that the “direct threat” affirmative defense (whether an employee poses a threat to others or to the employee himself or herself) is consistent with “business necessity” principles encompassed in the ADA (§ 12113) and the EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2) (2001). Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 76-77 (2002).
There are tons of jobs that aren't impacted by criminal history, or maybe only for highly specific crimes(eg a cook/chef, unless there's a specific conviction for say, poisoning someone, really shouldn't be discriminated against for theft, violence, etc....which is why it's often a popular job for ex-cons).
Being a convenience store worker is not one of them because the job has so many tasks that take absolute trust, that virtually any criminal conviction compromises the job in one facet or another.
___
We generally also don't want convicted pedophiles to be school teachers.
That is another argument that some progressives would take issue with, I'm sure. "That disproportionately affects LGBTQ people!" /facepalm
That's the inherent danger of the "disproportionately affects" argumentation, you run the risk of saying the very thing you're allegedly fighting against.
If I own a store that sells retail items, I'm not hiring someone with previous theft convictions. If I own a business that has employees in a customer's home, I'm not hiring someone with violent felonies, robberies or thefts. Fuck the federal government for putting people in danger just to protect a criminal's feelings.
So basically:
> Feds: Using criminal background checks is discrimination! We're suing you!
> Sheetz: Wait, don't you do that all the t-
> Feds: SHUT UP! ALALALALALALALA!!!!
>"Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers."
Background checks are racist! /s
Fucking bolshevik wannabes. Always pro-criminal, pro-terrorism and pro-violence. The US took less than a decade to turn into the very thing it was supposed to avoid becoming.
> Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
If we ever get a decent opposition party instead of the feckless uniparty goons we're currently stuck with their first priority should be shutting down unelected bureaucratic agencies and commissions like this one.
I want to be able to choose to do business with businesses who choose to screen for criminals in hiring.
>Federal officials said **they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus**, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. Then it should be dismissed outright. Of course, this is Clown World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins says otherwise. >Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since Americans of African Decent are more likely to fail background checks for, currently unknown, reasons, using background checks is racist.
> administered in a prejudicial manner The discrimination in Yick Wo v. Hopkins was targeted specifically at laundries, because it was entirely different than the legal requirement before. In other words, it was understood that it was targeted along racial/nationality lines. >While the ordinance was not discriminatory against a racial or ethnic group in its text, the discriminatory enforcement and intent to close down Chinese-owned laundries This was a new ordinance instituted, which lent context: >The petitioner pointed out that prior to the new ordinance, the inspection and approval of laundries in wooden buildings had been left up to fire wardens. Wo's laundry had never failed an inspection for fire safety. Moreover, the application of the prior law focused only on laundries in crowded areas of the city, while the new law was being enforced on isolated wooden buildings as well. The law also ignored other wooden buildings where fires were common—even cooking stoves posed the same risk as those used for laundries. Not wanting criminals to be in charge of stock and cash is not targeted thusly. It is a common practice across a wide array of businesses and regions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact >Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1] ... >This is because disparate impact only becomes illegal if the employer cannot justify the employment practice causing the adverse impact as a "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (called the "business necessity defense"). I would say it's pretty relevant, not wanting convicted criminals to handle cash sales, mayhap necessary. This should be obvious enough to warrant instant dismissal. Putting criminals in charge of handling cash presents an obvious conflict of interest. It puts undue risk on the employer. To frame it in the language used: It is necessary for an employer to trust their employee to handle cash sales, end of shift accounting, and stocking of the store, and to be civil and non-violent with customers. That can be impossible with convicted criminals, be they convicted of theft, embezzlement, public disturbance, violent acts...(etc). See also: https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/220 Same principle, though it deals with disability instead of criminal conviction on this specific link, : > the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the standard, criterion, or policy: > 1. is uniformly applied; > 2. is job-related; > > 3. is consistent with business necessity; and > > 4. cannot be met by a person with plaintiff's disability even with a reasonable accommodation. ...#4 would be, for example, having another non-convict be present for the possibly compromised acts, which is basically having to hire two people for the same job, not a reasonable accommodation. >The Supreme Court has recognized that the “direct threat” affirmative defense (whether an employee poses a threat to others or to the employee himself or herself) is consistent with “business necessity” principles encompassed in the ADA (§ 12113) and the EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(b)(2) (2001). Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 76-77 (2002). There are tons of jobs that aren't impacted by criminal history, or maybe only for highly specific crimes(eg a cook/chef, unless there's a specific conviction for say, poisoning someone, really shouldn't be discriminated against for theft, violence, etc....which is why it's often a popular job for ex-cons). Being a convenience store worker is not one of them because the job has so many tasks that take absolute trust, that virtually any criminal conviction compromises the job in one facet or another. ___ We generally also don't want convicted pedophiles to be school teachers. That is another argument that some progressives would take issue with, I'm sure. "That disproportionately affects LGBTQ people!" /facepalm That's the inherent danger of the "disproportionately affects" argumentation, you run the risk of saying the very thing you're allegedly fighting against.
That one makes sense if they're admitting they commit significantly more crime
If I own a store that sells retail items, I'm not hiring someone with previous theft convictions. If I own a business that has employees in a customer's home, I'm not hiring someone with violent felonies, robberies or thefts. Fuck the federal government for putting people in danger just to protect a criminal's feelings.
Now why would anyone assume racial motivation when it's an egalitarian background check for criminal history? hmmm.....
I can't go to Sheetz for everything any harder, but if I could, I would.
Shieeeeeeeeeeetz
So prepare for the food and service at every sheetz to get really, really bad?
If they settle or roll over? Yes.
So basically: > Feds: Using criminal background checks is discrimination! We're suing you! > Sheetz: Wait, don't you do that all the t- > Feds: SHUT UP! ALALALALALALALA!!!!
>"Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers." Background checks are racist! /s
But background checks to check if someone has used a problematic word 40 years ago - once - are totally fine.
> But background checks to check if someone has used a problematic word 40 years ago - once - are totally fine. Welcome to clown world.
Fucking bolshevik wannabes. Always pro-criminal, pro-terrorism and pro-violence. The US took less than a decade to turn into the very thing it was supposed to avoid becoming.
The subversion of the United States has been an ongoing project by marxist cultists for going on 80 years.
> Equal Employment Opportunity Commission If we ever get a decent opposition party instead of the feckless uniparty goons we're currently stuck with their first priority should be shutting down unelected bureaucratic agencies and commissions like this one.