There’s got to be more to this Sheetz story right? I’ve had to pass a background check for damn near every job I ever had. It can’t be just having background checks ran that got them in trouble.
From this MSN article https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...crimination-in-its-hiring-process/ar-AA1ngpEj About 14.5% of Black applicants failed the screening, while less than 8% of White applicants failed, according to the lawsuit. Native Americans and multiracial applicants failed at a rate of about 13%. “Black job applicants comprise a disproportionately high number of the total number of job applicants whom Defendants have refused to hire because of criminal justice history information,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit added that according to published statistics, Black people and Native Americans in the United States “are subject to arrest, conviction, and incarceration at significantly higher rates relative to White persons.”
Id need to read the actual complaint but it seems like the claim is that there isn’t a relationship between what Sheetz was screening for and their legitimate safety/job requirements, and that while Sheetz applied those standards consistently, because minorities are more likely to have criminal history, the impact of their policy was discriminatory. tbh the lawsuit seems like a good way for the EEOC to get discriminatory impact analysis thrown out.
Yea unless POC applicants were failed for things that white applicants weren’t failed for I’m not sure how this is a Sheetz issue. It’s a justice system issue.
Seems like that could be applied to every company just about. I haven’t failed a check before but I doubt what I could have failed for would have had much impact on any job I applied for. But without knowing the details this is all just a guess from me.
There’s good case law about employers not being able to blanket ban all persons with criminal history. The employer is supposed to make individualized risk decisions (although they can use general rubrics about types offenses/how old they are). It’s unclear to me how out of sync Sheetz is with the EEOC guidance, but if they’ve been arguing over the policy for eight years there’s probably a bit of ambiguity there that is unlikely to be resolved in EEOC’s favor once the Supreme Court kills Chevron deference in a few weeks.
I'm just not going to engage or take anything at face value from known bad faith actors and actual nazis like "End Wokeness" and Elon Musk
Yes, it is an issue with the justice system but the EEOC rule is in place to make it more difficult for employers to mask racial hiring practices. The EEOC doesn’t have to show a racist motive if the outcome is negatively impacting minorities at a greater rate unless the employer can prove there is a business reason or no better method for screening. Imagine if employers could ask “have you been convicted of a Jim Crow law?”. Technically speaking it’s just a law so anyone could be found guilty of one of those laws, though obviously black people are a vast majority of those convicted. The EEOC is claiming that Sheetz is using a watered down version of this screening as evidence by there being a disproportionate racial hiring divide AND there is apparently a criminal history screen the EEOC is suggesting that wouldn’t result in the same discrepancy.
The old cliche that owners start to look like their dogs is hilarious when you realize Elon is starting to look more like a cyber truck with each passing day.
Passed a cybertruck today that was parked askew in the middle of a Chevron station with yellow caution tape around it
This doesn’t seem promising https://www.reuters.com/business/au...venue-falls-first-time-since-2020-2024-04-23/ But they’re up 10% after hours so what do I know
there’s a weird lull in EV demand because everyone knows models two years from now will have 30% better range and recharging time. I don’t think the demand thing is a long term concern for automakers
The market is such a fucking scam. Stock skyrockets on an abysmal earnings report and a lie about pursuing a mass market car (which honestly is also a bad strategy for automakers)
It’s all because Musk said that the “plan” was to introduce a new low cost model by 2025, and maybe as early as the end of this year. That contradicts Reuters’ recent report that Musk was planning to scrap new low cost models to focus on robotaxis. My best bet is he is lying again about the ability to deliver a new low cost model in that time frame and did so to pump the stock.
Love to announce a huge new project in a famously low margin market segment right after laying off 10% of my workforce
I think the drop in demand for Tesla specifically is people who are now turned off by Musk. At least there's reporting that suggests that