Posted on 06/09/2025 5:47:33 AM PDT by karpov
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country’s civil rights laws.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of “disparate impact liability” in civil rights enforcement.
Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay.
Trump’s executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people.
In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company’s policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Long past the time this theory should have been sent to the dumpster.
Its just another example of liberals catering to criminals. Theres nothing that says “black criminals” , white criminals are susceptible to the same exact policies. Unless someone could prove that is not true , there is nothing racist about it.
Taking the tax payer off the hook for judgements renders the entire race baiting industry null and void. If judgement can only come from individuals accused then the majority of cases will disappear. Currently the individual is accused and convicted and the judge levies a fine to be paid by the Government Agency, or the corporation. It is always in the millions. This is a legal industry in and of itself, which is really just a political scam.
If an individual harms another they are personally liable.
AP is doing what AP does.
Long past the time this theory should have been sent to the dumpster.
It is an idiotic, false assumption.
pretty racist to make assumptions that applicants who cannot pass criminal background checks and are likely to have been law breakers,are a certain members of a specific racial group eh? or come from a crime accepting culture.
She loved working at Sheetz. I'm assuming if she ever felt discriminated against she would have mentioned it. Of course, her lack of any criminal record may have had something to do with Sheetz not "discriminating," against her.
The EEOC basically said those groups were more likely to be criminals. That sounds racist to me.
Like 'merit'??? /s
a##- hole -ciated depressed
Sigh. Further proof, as if needed, that the profession of journalism has been truly shat upon by the left.
Come to think of it, 71% of the NFL's players are "people of color" while they only represent less than 25% of the population. Clearly this is irrefutable evidence of discrimination against White people.
Right EEOC? Hey, I'm only using your logic/arguments.
“Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic group.”
That AP description is a giant half truth amounting to a lie.
Disparate impact theory does not require any evidence of “artificial barriers” in place that produce the disparate impact. It only relies on statistical evidence that a “disparity” (demographics of a situation showing statistical disparate proportions between the general population in an area and those individuals receiving or participating in some service in the area. If the demographics are not proportional then a “disparity” is assumed and its causes presumed to be “artificial barriers”; without evidence.
Disparate impact does not consider that people’s own choices and intentions can, and often do, produce localized results that are demographically disproportionate (the disparity) to an area’s general population.
That is the purest form of racism.
EC
“Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights”
DNC Response: “They OBVIOUSLY are racists, just look at their name”
The racists at the Associated Pravda are having kittens over this.
Actually, that assumption is irrelevant. That's kind of my point. The theory has nothing to do with the intent/motive of the business. There is no assumption that the business is racist, and in fact proving that the business isn't racist is irrelevant. The effect alone is held to be discriminatory regardless of the actual intent of the business.
This was my area of law and it is one of the things most commonly misunderstood about disparate impact. The disparate treatment theory is the one that presumes discriminatory intent based on actions.
The real insidious part about disparate impact is that you can have had a long-standing policy that had no disparate impact -- maybe because there were no females in the relevant employment pool, etc.. -- so there clearly was no claim of discriminatory intent as the reason behind the establishment of the policy. But if a long-standing policy later is determined to have a discriminatory impact, you are still liable.
Great example of this are physical fitness tests for jobs that used to be all male. Clearly, if there was a rule that only males could apply in the first place, the fitness test was not intended to weed out women but to select among qualified men. But when women later are ordered admitted, disparate impact may require employers to change their long-standing fitness test.
“caused by some sort of racism”
and
“The effect alone is held to be discriminatory regardless”
Seem to be very close in meaning, depending on how the reader interprets them.
I intended the meaning you wrote. “Some sort of racism” was meant to include the idea of “institutional racism”.
Institutional “racism” includes “racism” which is not intentional.
You come i to my store wearing g a hoodie over your head when it’s 85f out, hands in you pockets, dreadlocks over you face, stumbling, with bloodshot eyes. I dont care what color you are. You dress like a thug. Why do you want to look like a thug, unless you want to act like a thug. I won’t hire you. B
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.