The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lists Sheetz, Inc.; Sheetz Distribution Services, LLC; and CLI Transport, LP as the defendants. The EEOC says that Sheetz has disproportionately screened out black, Native American, Alaska Native, and multiracial applicants from its hiring process due to the chain not hiring applicants with criminal conviction records.
This makes me think it's easier to NOT do a background check and instead look to see if they're black, Native American, Alaska Native, and multiracial.
Apparently the law says that some practice that maintains the safety of staff and customers is only allowed if there isn't an equally effective alternative available that is simultaneously less discriminatory.
How are they going to demonstrate a viable alternative? Establishing whether there is risk to safety means assessing a person's behavior, including past behavior. So, you want to see if there is a record of past criminal behavior.
What viable alternative exists for doing this other than consulting a person's criminal fucking record?
What, are they going to say you could conduct a psychological test? A personality questionnaire? Yeah, the second they implement that, they'll still get sued into oblivion if the outcome results in less blacks being hired.
They are really struggling at this point to avoid saying what's obvious: they don't care about your independent ability to choose what's best for your business. They don't care whether you take measures to ensure your safety. These groups are surviving and thriving by forcing you to compromise on your own freedom and the extent to which your intelligence facilitates acting freely.
[ + ] Spaceman84
[ - ] Spaceman84 9 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 11:37:43 ago (+9/-0)
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica 8 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 12:19:18 ago (+8/-0)
This makes me think it's easier to NOT do a background check and instead look to see if they're black, Native American, Alaska Native, and multiracial.
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 4 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 13:17:52 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 2 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 11:34:23 ago (+4/-2)
there's no adverse party here. it's fugazi.
[ + ] Spaceman84
[ - ] Spaceman84 5 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 11:44:57 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 1 point 1 weekApr 24, 2024 12:21:45 ago (+2/-1)
Go check out their advertising plz.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 0 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 15:19:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff 1 point 1 weekApr 24, 2024 12:07:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 1 point 1 weekApr 24, 2024 12:22:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 14:35:51 ago (+0/-0)
How are they going to demonstrate a viable alternative? Establishing whether there is risk to safety means assessing a person's behavior, including past behavior. So, you want to see if there is a record of past criminal behavior.
What viable alternative exists for doing this other than consulting a person's criminal fucking record?
What, are they going to say you could conduct a psychological test? A personality questionnaire? Yeah, the second they implement that, they'll still get sued into oblivion if the outcome results in less blacks being hired.
They are really struggling at this point to avoid saying what's obvious: they don't care about your independent ability to choose what's best for your business. They don't care whether you take measures to ensure your safety. These groups are surviving and thriving by forcing you to compromise on your own freedom and the extent to which your intelligence facilitates acting freely.
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 0 points 1 weekApr 24, 2024 13:35:31 ago (+0/-0)