An Altoona man and former employee of Sheetz Inc., who lost his job following a criminal background check, has filed a federal civil rights complaint to continue the ongoing legal battle against the company if a federal judge approves the dismissal of the case that was initially brought last year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC filed a petition 14 months ago in Baltimore that contended the company’s policy of rejecting prospective employees who fail a criminal history check had a “disparate impact” on minorities when it came to hiring.

The federal agency brought the lawsuit after an EEOC investigation into complaints filed by two residents of western Pennsylvania who were offered jobs but then rejected after failing the company’s criminal history.

The civil rights action was then transferred from Baltimore to the federal district court in Johnstown — the district where Sheetz corporate headquarters is located.

The case has been actively moving through the court system with the U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines recently denied a Sheetz motion to dismiss a part of the EEOC complaint, and Sheetz filed its answer to the lawsuit, pointing out the disagreement concerning hiring practices began almost a decade ago yet remains unresolved.

The EEOC action against Sheetz was filed under the Biden administration, but on April 23, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14281, that, according to the EEOC attorneys, “deprioritized” enforcement of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact cases.

According to a filing in Johns­town by EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence, the leadership of the EEOC determined the continuation of the lawsuit “would be inconsistent with the Executive Order,” and late last week, the EEOC asked the action against Sheetz be dismissed.

But the agency also asked that the dismissal be deferred for 60 days so the agency can notify those members of the class of individuals who were relying on the EEOC to prosecute their claims.

The fact that the EEOC has sought dismissal does not end the legal battle, however.

The law permits a member of the class involved in the lawsuit to intervene and continue the action, which is what Kenni Miller, 32, a Black man from Altoona, has done.

Miller, through a New York law firm, Outten & Golden LLP, and the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia a week ago filed a Class Action Complaint in Intervention.

It claims that 14.5% of Black applicants applying for employment with Sheetz are rejected due to their failing the criminal history check. The failure rate is 13% of American Indian and Alaska native applying to Sheetz.

White job applicants have a failure rate of less than 8%, according to the petition to intervene.

The petition argues, “Having a conviction is not an accurate proxy for determining whether an applicant would be able to perform the duties of the job.”

Miller applied to Sheetz five years ago for the job of evening or overnight shift supervisor at the Beale Avenue store in Altoona.

He was given a conditional offer of employment, subject to the background check.

He quit his job with a utility company and worked as a shift supervisor for more than a month.

During his time on the job, he passed a drug test and he stated that he knew of no complaints about his work.

However, during the criminal history check by Global Investigative Services (an agency used by Sheetz), he was flagged for two convictions for drug-related activity in 2011 and 2018.

Based on that discovery, he was then denied employment by Sheetz.

Miller, in a statement released last week by the New York law firm, stated, “I was trying to build a future, and Sheetz made a snap judgment about me that had nothing to do with my ability to do the job. Now the government is abandoning our case. It is disheartening, but we’re not going to give up our fight for justice.”

On Wednesday, attorney Meghan Binford of the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia entered her court appearance on Miller’s behalf.

Miller, in the proposed lawsuit, alleges that Sheetz, through its criminal history checks, has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on “overbroad criminal history screening,” and has also violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Records Act.

It seeks court certification of a class action which would include a large number of people in the same position as Miller.

It seeks back pay and front for each individual in the class.

The lawsuit also seeks a preliminary injunction against Sheetz’s present hiring practices.

Haines has ordered that Sheetz and two subsidiary companies, Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP, reply to Miller’s petition to intervene by June 27.

Sheetz, a convenience store chain with more than 700 outlets and 20,000 employees, commented on the recent events, noting it has over these many years taken the allegations seriously.

“Sheetz is aware that the EEOC is in the process of dropping their lawsuit against us due to an executive order. As we have said since this action was filed last year, Sheetz has taken the allegations seriously — while also working with the EEOC for nine years to find common ground to resolve the dispute.

“We are proud of our employees. Sheetz has been ranked a Top 100 Best Place to Work by Fortune Magazine for the past decade — in addition to being named a top ‘Company That Cares’ by People Magazine. Both rankings were determined through third-party surveys of our employees.

“Because this remains an active litigation, we cannot say more about it at this time. It is important, though, to use this opportunity to reiterate our commitment to fairness and inclusivity.”

The Sheetz statement was issued Wednesday by Nick Ruffner, the company’s public affairs manager.