The government agency that is seeking reparations from Sheetz Inc. for alleged discriminatory hiring practices has asked a federal judge in Baltimore to reject a request to move the civil rights action from the federal district court in Maryland to the district court in Johnstown.

The Sheetz corporation, which employs more than 24,000 workers in six states including Maryland, recently filed a petition with federal District Judge Julie Rebecca Rublin challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s decision to file the case in Baltimore.

The Altoona-based Sheetz corporation argued that Maryland is not the appropriate venue for the case to be heard because the company’s key decision-makers and records are located in western Pennsylvania.

The Sheetz attorneys also noted that the initial complaints against the company were investigated by the EEOC office in Pittsburgh.

“Because venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania and the allegations in this case are only tenuously connected to the District of Maryland, and because the Commission’s selection of forum should not be given much weight … this court should grant (the Sheetz request) for transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania,” Sheetz stated in its petition

Sheetz noted that the transfer would better accommodate witnesses who will be called to testify.

The Western District of Pennsylvania includes courts in Pittsburgh, Erie and Johnstown.

If transfer occurs, the most likely venue would be to bring the case to Johnstown, which hears federal cases from Blair, Cambria, Bedford and Somerset counties.

EEOC has now filed a petition challenging the Sheetz request, stating it is “meritless and should be denied.”

The agency argues that its choice of the venue “warrants heightened deference” and it contends Sheetz has substantial operations in Maryland where many of the alleged “aggrieved persons” live.

The Sheetz facilities in Maryland include 34 stores and a petroleum facility.

Sheetz, however, points out that there are more than 360 Sheetz stores in Pennsylvania as well as five main facilities operated by Sheetz CLI Transport L.P.

CLI is the company’s petroleum carrier that includes, according to Sheetz, 240 tankers that annually deliver more than 2.4 billion gallons of gas to the Sheetz stores.

In its petition to transfer the case to Pennsylvania, Sheetz points out the policies and procedures that are being questioned by EEOC are “developed, revised and administered” by employees in Altoona and Claysburg.

EEOC in April filed its legal action against Sheetz Inc., CLI Transport and Sheetz Distribution Services, LLC, seeking to alter Sheetz’s alleged “unlawful employment practices” that take into consideration a job applicant’s criminal history.

EEOC wants to correct this policy because it allegedly has adversely affected minorities, namely Blacks, and those with American Indian/Alaska Native and mulitracial backgrounds.

The end result is an “unlawful disparate impact” on job applicants because of race, the petition contends.

This “ongoing, company-wide practice of refusing to hire such persons because of information about their criminal justice histories” is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the EEOC contends.

The agency stated in its counter-petition that its choice of venue “is entitled to substantial weight.”

The number of alleged “aggrieved persons” are spread across 30 states.

The EEOC petition maintains that so far the number of minority persons aggrieved by the Sheetz hiring policies is over 1,000.

Baltimore, the EEOC has stated, should be the venue for the case because it is more convenient for the expert witnesses who are expected to testify.

The agency expects many alleged victims of the Sheetz hiring policies will also be called to testify.

“Baltimore is a far more accessible and convenient venue than Johnstown, whether by air or ground transportation,” the EEOC stated.

The airport serving Baltimore is much larger than the one serving Pittsburgh, the EEOC emphasizes.

And, Baltimore offers more and better office space for the parties, the petition stated.

Also, the cost would be lesser for EEOC to have the case in Baltimore.

Transferring the venue to western Pennsylvania is inappropriate as doing so would merely shift inconvenience from Sheetz to the EEOC, the agency argued, noting the agency does not support transfer.

Addressing the Sheetz contention that the records appropriate to the case are located in Pennsylvania, EEOC concluded the Sheetz records and those of the company’s third party agency that performs background checks are electronic.

The EEOC also noted that the federal court in Baltimore has more judges than Johnstown and is able to move cases through the system more quickly.

The case is in its initial stages, and Sheetz has yet to answer the allegations.