This would be like hiring the fox to watch the henhouse or like letting criminals, even murderers across our borders……….oh, well, wait……

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Sheetz is very prevalent here in Virginia

---

Good chunk of the NE I think. I've had a couple projects in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the last three years and seen them all over.

They're what Stripes used to be here in parts of Texas until a year or so ago. Good selection of hot food, order at the kiosk and it's cooked fresh(ish).

will stop at Sheetz later today on my way to Myrtle Beach!

What happened with Stripes?

I'm going to need a lot more explanation here…..

Quote:

---

• Sheetz, which operates over 700 stores in six states, is accused of violating federal civil rights law by disproportionately impacting minority applicants with its hiring practices.

---

If they rejected 100% of all applicants who failed the criminal background check, the race of the rejects should be irrelevant.

Now if they hired whitey with an armed robbery of a convenience store in his background………. ;-)

bmc13 said:

---

lol. who there pissed off someone in his entourage.

---

Grandpa Joe didn't like his pudding pop.

agent-maroon said:

---

What happened with Stripes?

---

Pretty sure they were all sold, at least here in the Houston area. 7-11 came in and a bunch of them were re-branded, then a bunch of them have turned indy. The 7-11's all still look professional, the indy ones are blank white buildings and parapets with just the blue Sunoco badging on the fuel islands.

The federal government has turned into some 1984/Animal Farm/A Clockwork Orange dystopian nightmare.

96AgGrad said:

---

Smeghead4761 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.

Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.

---

So now not wanting to hire people with criminal backgrounds is discrimination against minorities?

There seems to be more than a little racism in the underlying assumptions of that assertion.

---

This is just the latest incarnation of the "disparate impact" doctrine put forth by SCOTUS in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424 (1971)).

Basically, you can have a criteria that is neutral on its face (like the requirement to pass a criminal background check) that has a "disparate" negative impact on members of a protected class (race, sex, etc), then that criteria can be ruled illegal by the courts.

The specific item in Griggs was the use of an aptitude test to select for promotions. IIRC, the test was actually derived from one originally used by the military during WWII. But since no black workers passed the test, the court decided it was de facto illegal discrimination.

---

It's absurd on it's face. I can't imagine that there is even a single job requirement for any job that would result in equal outcomes across all demographics.

Edit: After reading up on the court case, apparently disparate impact is not a problem in an of itself, but if it exists, the company has the burden of proving the requirement is necessary for the function of the business.

---

Pretty sure most retail businesses have the minimization of shrinkage as a business requirement. I'm sure having ex-cons handling cash, having access to credit card numbers, and around costly merchandise/inventory is something most businesses would rather not do. Shouldn't be too hard for Sheetz to show that and the DOJ is wasting resources even bringing this case.

The disparate impact standard is a bull**** standard. The government should be under the burden to demonstrate it was purposefully intended to be bigoted, not the business having to prove it wasn't and is coincidental.

It operates under the plainly false presumption that all protected populations have an even/random distribution of performance characteristics and that any disproportionate distribution was somehow created by a systemic past unfairness instead of self selection.

The government itself engages in the bigotry of presuming behavior is dictated to a degree by often superficial characteristics.

agent-maroon said:

---

Al Bula said:

---

The federal government has turned into some 1984/Animal Farm/A Clockwork Orange dystopian nightmare.

---

Believe the proper term is "fundamental change", just as we were promised way back in 2008

---

Winner!

Sheetz > WaWa

So, I guess convicted criminals can be added as a protected class. You must bake my "congratulations on the great rape" cake.

agent-maroon said:

---

Al Bula said:

---

The federal government has turned into some 1984/Animal Farm/A Clockwork Orange dystopian nightmare.

---

Believe the proper term is "fundamental change", just as we were promised way back in 2008

---

We "hoped" for "change". We "reimagined".

Changing our republic based on Judeo-Christian values and capitalism that drove exceptionalism through hard work, entrepreneurship, and merit into a centrally planned Marxist "equity" impoverished hell hole doesn't seem like it's going to take much longer. It happened to Venezuela pretty quickly and here we are.

Retail store doesn't want people with a criminal background handling money and merchandise in their stores.

Imagine that.

Hey to all of you FBI bots monitoring Texags - would you pass along to your friends at the DoJ that they %^$&@!

thanks

Won't be much longer and businesses will be required to hire the minority.

If anyone ever dares to start pondering if maybe government is getting too big and too powerful, think of all the brave and important work we the people depend on feds to do for us:

Hunting down and arresting church ladies for praying at abortion clinics

Hunting down and arresting grandmas because they took a selfie in a certain building over three years ago

Investigating companies who might not be hiring criminals

Infiltrating the Catholic Church because they could be extremist with their abortion views

Setting up an autistic dude with a plan to kidnap a governor

Planting fake pipe bombs the day before a demonstration


So you see, they're just too busy with the important stuff to focus on other small things like child porn and sex trafficking or Biden's corruption. We really need more government after all.

C@LAg said:

---

that is some bull-sheetz.

---

Well, we're already done here.

sleepybeagle said:

---

Hey to all of you FBI bots monitoring Texags - would you pass along to your friends at the DoJ that they %^$&@!

thanks

---

Of course, the thread title notwithstanding, the DOJ has nothing at all to do with any of this. The belief that the DOJ is involved in any way is simply fantasy fueled by right-wing mania.

The EEOC is completely separate and independent from the DOJ.

All this time I thought Sheetz was an outfitter for the Klan.

Quote:

---

The EEOC is completely separate and independent from the DOJ.

---

yay! more government. govern me harder, daddy.

BCSWguru said:

---

Sheetz > WaWa

---

Where's that gif of Trump saying "Wrong?"

Because you are very wrong, sir. And I will die upon this hill.

Are they going to go after landlords next who disqualify candidates who fail criminal background checks? SMDH

agent-maroon said:

---

A convenience store chain name "Sheetz"? Seriously? Were the names "Krapz" and "Peeze" already taken or something?

---

I always laugh when I see billboards for Bimbos truck stops.

Convenience stores handle money. Hiring someone with a history of robbery, burglary, embezzlement, just theft in general would not make sense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Convenience stores handle money. Hiring someone with a history of robbery, burglary, embezzlement, just theft in general would not make sense.

---

that's racist! EEOC, investigate!

ts5641 said:

---

Never understood how minorities do not see the contempt with which the democrat party sees them.

---

Never understood how white people can see this and not think the end goal is eliminating whites from all jobs.

Watermelon Man said:

---

sleepybeagle said:

---

Hey to all of you FBI bots monitoring Texags - would you pass along to your friends at the DoJ that they %^$&@!

thanks

---

Of course, the thread title notwithstanding, the DOJ has nothing at all to do with any of this. The belief that the DOJ is involved in any way is simply fantasy fueled by right-wing mania.

The EEOC is completely separate and independent from the DOJ.

---

Well OK, then... it's not the DOJ causing the problem here, but rather the EEOC!

This changes EVERYTHING!!!!!



/s

Watermelon Man said:

---

sleepybeagle said:

---

Hey to all of you FBI bots monitoring Texags - would you pass along to your friends at the DoJ that they %^$&@!

thanks

---

Of course, the thread title notwithstanding, the DOJ has nothing at all to do with any of this. The belief that the DOJ is involved in any way is simply fantasy fueled by right-wing mania.

The EEOC is completely separate and independent from the DOJ.

---

Cool, so when is the EEOC going to go after the NBA & NFL? NFL teams can function just fine with players a tenth of a second slower in the 40. If criminal background checks "negatively impact certain groups" from getting jobs then the same could be said of the combine, right?

Tea Party said:

---

Sounds like the DOJ is racist and should be sued.

/s

---

Well why not?

HARRIS COUNTY WOMAN CHARGED WITH FELONY THEFT FOR EMBEZZLING FROM SPEC'S STORE

According to a statement obtained by Constable Mark Herman's Facebook page, the investigation also brought to light Whitaker's history, with prior theft convictions adding gravity to her recent actions.

https://hoodline.com/2024/04/harris-county-woman-charged-with-felony-theft-for-embezzling-from-spec-s-store/

96AgGrad said:

---

Smeghead4761 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.

Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.

---

So now not wanting to hire people with criminal backgrounds is discrimination against minorities?

There seems to be more than a little racism in the underlying assumptions of that assertion.

---

This is just the latest incarnation of the "disparate impact" doctrine put forth by SCOTUS in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424 (1971)).

Basically, you can have a criteria that is neutral on its face (like the requirement to pass a criminal background check) that has a "disparate" negative impact on members of a protected class (race, sex, etc), then that criteria can be ruled illegal by the courts.

The specific item in Griggs was the use of an aptitude test to select for promotions. IIRC, the test was actually derived from one originally used by the military during WWII. But since no black workers passed the test, the court decided it was de facto illegal discrimination.

---

It's absurd on it's face. I can't imagine that there is even a single job requirement for any job that would result in equal outcomes across all demographics.

Edit: After reading up on the court case, apparently disparate impact is not a problem in an of itself, but if it exists, the company has the burden of proving the requirement is necessary for the function of the business.

---

So the company must hire criminals(note: criminals regardless of race), allow them to steal, kill managers/customers, etc. at a higher rate than non-criminals to prove their hiring practices are not racially motivated.

Well, duh… Their name is Sheetz. What else would the Klan call their own company???