Sheetz asks judge to dismiss lawsuit
Civil rights action contends hiring policy has disparate effect on minority applicants

Customers checkout at a Sheetz convenience store, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, in Bethlehem, Pa. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Sheetz Inc. and two other companies related to the Altoona-based convenience store chain have asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposal by a city man to intervene in a lawsuit seeking damages from the company that was originally filed, but recently discontinued, by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC last year filed the civil rights action contending a Sheetz policy of performing criminal history background checks of potential employees has a disparate effect on the hiring of Black applicants and other minority groups.
The lawsuit stemmed from complaints filed by two western Pennsylvania residents, Joseph Gorsuch and Rachael Whethers, who claim they lost employment opportunities with the Sheetz Corporation.
Gorsuch claimed gender discrimination in a 2016 complaint filed with the Pittsburgh EEOC, while Whethers maintained her opportunity was lost in 2018 because of the company’s policy of not hiring individuals “with certain (criminal) convictions.”
The federal agency conducted an investigation and concluded that the Sheetz policy of rejecting applicants based on their criminal histories had an overall negative impact on employment opportunities for Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native and multitracial individuals.
The EEOC action was brought by the Biden Administration, but when President Donald Trump took office, the filing of the lawsuits based on disparate impact was de-emphasized, and the EEOC decided in early June that it would discontinue the lawsuit against Sheetz Inc., Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP.
Under this circumstance, federal law allows a member of the “aggrieved party” (the individuals who claim discrimination) to intervene and continue the lawsuit.
That’s where an Altoona man, Kenni Miller, 32, entered the picture. Miller, represented by a New York law firm, Outten & Golden LLP, and the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia, filed a complaint in June to intervene and to continue the lawsuit.
He maintained in his lawsuit that he was hired by Sheetz in 2020 as a shift supervisor, but his conditional job offer was withdrawn after working for more than a month, not because of his performance but because of past drug-related activity.
Miller, in a statement upon filing the complaint to intervene, commented, “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.”
The new complaint filed against Sheetz claims a violation not only of federal law, but of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Information Act, which limits the use of a person’s criminal past by employers when it comes to hiring.
Last Friday, Sheetz filed a lengthy objection to Miller’s request to move the EEOC lawsuit forward, contending he “has no statutory right to intervene.”
Federal law gives a “person aggrieved” the right to step in as plaintiff in a closed EEOC lawsuit, but Sheetz attorneys argue that Miller was not part of the initial lawsuit and his claim for damages was not similar to the claims filed years ago by Gorsuch and Whethers.
The request for dismissal pointed out that Miller was in actuality an employee of Sheetz for a short period of time and that his case took place during a different time frame than those included as plaintiffs under the original lawsuit.
Allowing Miller to enter the lawsuit at this point would set the case back a year, according to the Sheetz petition.
Sheetz emphasized that substantial work in resolving the case has already been underway, noting for instance, both sides, up to the time EEOC announced its intent to close the case, involved the exchange of 74,000 documents that included 245,000 pages of material.
“Truth be told, the interests Miller and his counsel seek to protect are in serving as a class representative and class counsel, respectively.
“Further, allowing Miller, a private litigant, to intervene and attempt to stand in the shoes of the EEOC, a government agency that litigates in the public interest, after EEOC’s voluntary dismissal from the action would grant Miller the authority not only to resuscitate his own stale claims, but also to represent individuals with claims over a decade-long period that bear no relation to Miller’s own alleged harm,” the Sheetz attorneys commented.
Sheetz concluded, “Defendants are unaware of any precedent allowing such expanded powers for an individual intervenor.”
The Sheetz defendants were also critical of Miller’s attempt to add a violation of state law to the case, which was not involved in the EEOC case.
Also last Friday, attorney Debra M. Lawrence, representing the EEOC, filed a petition in favor of allowing Miller to intervene.
She disagreed with the Sheetz contention that Miller was not a member of the class he is attempting to represent.
Lawrence stated Miller “is a member of the class of aggrieved individuals subjected to alleged discriminatory practices that EEOC is challenging here.
“Because the proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor has a clear and unconditional statutory right to intervene in this action and has timely sought to intervene, he has satisfied the limited requirements for mandatory intervention under (the law),” Lawrence stated.
The lawsuit and Miller’s new complaint have been filed before U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines, who presides in Johnstown.