Sheetz seeks venue change
Gas, convenience chain files petition to transfer civil rights suit to Pennsylvania
Sheetz Inc. and two subsidiaries that provide food items and petroleum to the company's 700-plus convenience stores have asked that a federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged discriminatory hiring practices be moved from Maryland to the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The company on Wednesday filed a petition with U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin in Baltimore seeking the transfer because the cases of purported discrimination charged in the lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were investigated by EEOC's Pittsburgh office.
Sheetz also argued that its companies are headquartered in Altoona and Claysburg, Blair County, and all the business records are maintained locally.
"That the defendants' principal offices are in Blair County, Pennsylvania, alone establishes proper venue in Western Pennsylvania," according to the Sheetz petition.
Sheetz summed up its request by pointing out that having the venue in Western Pennsylvania (most likely in the federal court in Johnstown) would be another plus warranting the transfer of the case.
Sheetz reported that it has stores in over 700 locations throughout six states, and emphasized the company has more than 24,000 employees.
The company operates food-processing centers in Claysburg and Burlington, N.C., and its petroleum carrier is headquartered in Altoona.
Its petroleum carrier utilizes 240 tankers that travel 24 million miles annually and deliver more than 2.4 billion gallons of fuel to the company's convenience stores, according to its petition.
The petroleum carrier operates out of 13 terminals, primarily in Pennsylvania, with Sheetz explaining it had only one small satellite terminal in Maryland.
Less than 5% of Sheetz stores are located in Maryland, it stated.
"Finally, transfer will not disrupt this litigation or result in a waste of judicial resources because this case is in its infancy," the Sheetz petition stated.
Attorneys representing Sheetz, including Steven E. Kaplan of Washington, D.C., as well as Robert W. Cameron and Katelyn W. McCombs of Pittsburgh, pointed out Sheetz has yet to file its answer to the federal charges.
The date to answer the lawsuit is Monday, but, as of Thursday the Sheetz attorneys have not sought an extension of time to file the answer.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission through its Baltimore office -- and attorneys Debra M. Lawrence, Ronald L. Phillips and Gregory A. Murray -- in a complaint filed last April argued that Sheetz, by considering a person's criminal history in its hiring process, has created a "disparate impact" against minorities including Blacks, American Indians/Alaskan Natives and multiracial individuals.
The EEOC stated in its lawsuit that in May 2022, the agency found "reasonable cause" that Sheetz Inc., Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP, by considering an applicant's criminal history prior to hiring, violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The commission contended that it engaged in communications with the company in order to seek a remedy, but, according to the April lawsuit, "The Commission was unable to secure from (the company) a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission."
EEOC stated that on June 20, 2023, it issued a "Notice of Failure of Conciliation."
The government contended that Sheetz, after receiving a job application, authorizes a background check that is conducted by a third party.
A review is prepared that includes a person's criminal history, and it is not just limited to convictions.
In its complaint, the EEOC stated, "Defendants (Sheetz) refuse to hire all job applicants who they deem to have failed the review."
Personnel who decide whether a person has failed the review do not contact the applicant for further information, according to the EEOC.
No managerial or other company officials are delegated to oversee the hiring process, the lawsuit contended.
The applicant has no way to appeal the final decision, it continued.
"Defendants' criminal justice history screening causes significant disparate impact against Black (and other minority applicants), as reflected in the results of their screening practice," the government claims.
The lawsuit indicated that Black job applicants are denied employment at the rate of 14.5%, while white job applicants are denied employment, due to the criminal justice background checks, at the rate of 8%.
Indian, Alaskan natives and multiracial applicants are denied employment at the rate of 13%, the EEOC claims in its lawsuit.
The commission is seeking an injunction against their alleged disparate hiring practices and an order for Sheetz to provide equal employment opportunities for minorities.
The agency is also seeking back pay, with interest, installment of retroactive seniority and front pay for minorities for the alleged "aggrieved" job applicants.