×

Court rejects Sheetz attempt to limit scope of lawsuit

An attempt by Sheetz Inc. of Altoona and two related companies to limit the scope of a civil rights lawsuit concerning alleged discriminatory hiring practices has been rejected by a U.S. district judge presiding in Johns­town.

Judge Stephanie L. Haines on Friday denied the company’s position that complaints filed by job applicants prior to May 13, 2017, must be dismissed because they are barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which indicates that such claims must be filed within 300 days of their occurrence.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission nearly a year ago filed a federal civil rights complaint against Sheetz Inc., Sheetz Distribution Services and CLI Transport LP, contending the company’s policies requiring job applicants to reveal information about their criminal histories has resulted in an inequitable number of minority — Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native and multiracial — job applicants being denied employment by the convenience store chain.

Sheetz is contesting the lawsuit and filed a petition to exclude claims that involved hiring decisions prior to May 13, 2017, as untimely.

The EEOC began its investigation of the Sheetz hiring practices involving two complaints that were filed with the agency’s Pittsburgh office.

The first complaint was filed by a male who initially was offered a job, but that offer was rescinded.

In his initial complaint, he charged gender discrimination.

The second complaint of interest was filed on March 9, 2018, by a woman who claimed racial discrimination was the reason why she was not offered a job.

Based on these complaints, the EEOC in its civil rights action argues the scope of the civil rights complaint covers a period from August 10, 2015, (300 days prior to the filing of the complaint by the male) to the present time.

Sheetz, through its attorneys, challenged both the complaints filed by the male, who contended gender discrimination and the female that involved alleged racial discrimination — neither case involving discrimination against applicants due to their criminal histories.

But EEOC defended the present lawsuit, noting that the original charges of discrimination (gender and racial) provided a “jurisdictional springboard to investigate whether the employer is engaged in any discriminatory practices.”

The ensuing investigation found, according to EEOC Area Office Director, Deborah Kane, that since 2014 Sheetz had been using criminal history information “that causes an unlawful disparate impact on a class of male job applicants,” and also found the use of criminal history information has a disparate impact on minority applicants.

In her opinion, Haines addressed the argument that it was improper to use the male’s discrimination complaint as the starting point for the civil rights action when he only charged gender discrimination in the first place.

“While (the male) only asserts gender discrimination, the EEOC investigation found that he did, indeed, suffer the unlawful employment practice of race discrimination during the 300 days before filing his complaint,” Haines concluded.

Therefore, she ruled

Aug. 10, 2015, is within the 300-day limit established by the Civil Rights Act.

Haines pointed out that the petition before her was to “test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.”

She clarified however that her decision Friday is not a comment on whether the EEOC action “will likely prevail on the merits.”

The original civil rights case was filed in Baltimore but was removed to the District Court in Johnstown late last year.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox
I'm interested in (please check all that apply)(Required)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper?(Required)