An Altoona man, who maintains he lost his job in one of the area’s Sheetz convenience stores after failing a criminal history background check, is defending his right to intervene in a federal lawsuit that challenges the company’s hiring policies.

Kenni Miller, in a court filing earlier this month, is seeking to become the plaintiff of a lawsuit that was filed last year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The federal agency contended that the use of criminal history information by Sheetz has a “disparate impact” on the hiring of minority groups that include African-Americans, American Indian/Alaskan natives and multiracial individuals.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit against Sheetz Inc. and related companies, Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP.

The initial filing was in Baltimore, but Sheetz successfully contested the venue, arguing that it should be in western Pennsylvania, noting the Sheetz corporate headquarters is in Altoona.

The civil action was then transferred to the District Court in Johnstown and was assigned to Judge Stephanie L. Haines.

However, things changed earlier this year when President Donald Trump issued an executive order that “deprioritized” the filing of discrimination claims based on disparate impact issues.

The government contended that the use of criminal background checks had a greater impact on African-Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan natives and multiracial groups than others.

As a result of the president’s order, the EEOC announced in May that it would seek dismissal of the case against Sheetz.

The decision to dismiss the EEOC case rests with the judge.

Federal law, however, provides a way for those individuals who feel aggrieved by the alleged disparate hiring practices of Sheetz to continue their effort to prove their case — by having an intervenor replace the EEOC as the plaintiff.

Within days, Kenni Miller of Altoona, a Black man who worked on a contingent basis as an overnight supervisor at an Altoona Sheetz facility, stepped forward and sought to assume the role as intervenor.

He maintains that he was performing well in his new job when he was suddenly terminated from his position as the result of a failed criminal background check.

Miller is represented by the New York law firm of Outten & Golden LLP and by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.

The EEOC in June supported Miller’s attempt to intervene in the case.

It concluded that Miller is a member of the class of people who initially complained to the EEOC about the Sheetz use of criminal background in its hiring.

It stated the “proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor (Miller) has a clear and unconditional right to intervene and has timely sought to intervene. He has satisfied the limited requirements for mandatory intervention.”

The EEOC petition stated that Miller meets the definition of a “person or persons aggrieved for purposes of a right to intervene in this action.”

Sheetz, in a July court filing, opposed Miller’s right to intervene.

The company points out that MiIler was not among the people who initiated the investigation into the use of criminal background checks, and it opined, “Miller, however, has no statutory right to intervene and is not entitled to … intervention.”

Sheetz argued that Miller’s allegations, and those of the original plaintiffs, are not identical.

The company charged that Miller and his attorneys are primarily seeking to serve as a class representative for all those who may seek compensation through the lawsuit — for their own benefit.

It charges that allowing Miller to intervene would set the litigation back by a year.

Sheetz opposes Miller’s claim that the hiring policy not only violates federal law but also the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act, which outlines how criminal records are to be used as part of the hiring procedure.

Miller in his response contended that despite the fact he was not part of the initial lawsuit, his claim is “materially identical to the EEOC’s,” and “as an individual denied employment, Miller seeks to: challenge the same policy at the heart of the EEOC’s case; on behalf of the same individuals the EEOC represents; under the same statute and for the same period of time.”

His answer to the court also defends the filing under state law as well, noting it is dealing with the same issues under state law as the EEOC case addressed under federal law.

His answer stated, “As the EEOC explained, Miller’s claim falls squarely within the zone of interests sought to be protected by statutory provision that forms the legal basis of the EEOC’s complaint against the defendants (the Sheetz companies).”

The Miller answer concluded, “Miller has standing because Sheetz denied him gainful employment pursuant to its criminal history policy.”