also,. never heard of them so

Bwa hahahaha!

Sleepy pedo Joe was just in a Sheetz.

Asks to go behind food prep and get his pic w/ a bunch of white guys.

I was waiting for them to tell him to order at the kiosk...

Biden visit a Sheetz gas station in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania pic.twitter.com/x0ba0UQHFJ

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) April 17, 2024

lol. who there pissed off someone in his entourage.

10% of it went to you know who

Sheetz is very prevalent here in Virginia

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Sheetz is very prevalent here in Virginia

---

Been to the one in Lexington many times when my daughter was at VMI

Glad we only have Fart N' Fetchums here.

Logic... Sheetz keeping it real.

Sheetz is the better version of WaWa, and makes some bomb ass breakfast burritos.

Only place to get a meal for 50-75 miles after 8pm in rural areas in the Alleghenies of PA where I used to work a lot of workovers and drilling projects

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.

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.

Without comment

Muy said:

---

Because liberals assume that the criminals are always black.

---

Yes, yes they do.
They donated to BLM , but when they used the money to buy housss in their neighborhood, they were constantly calling the law on them walking down the street.