EEOC Drops Discrimination Case As Trump Eliminates Enforcement Of Civil Rights Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is moving to withdraw from a discrimination lawsuit against convenience store chain Sheetz, after an executive order by President Trump mandated the elimination of disparate impact liability from use in federal civil rights cases.

According to AP News, the EEOC cited the executive order in a notice sent to potential claimants informing them of their withdrawal from the case. The EEOC, whose sole purpose is to enforce workplace discrimination laws, filed the lawsuit last year after it found Sheetz “violated federal law by denying employment to a class of job applicants because of their race.” 

The findings came after an eight-year investigation found that Sheetz’s policy to refuse employment to anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% of Black job applicants being denied employment compared to 8% of white applicants. The case was initiated by Kenni Miller, a Black man who was fired by Sheetz after his background check revealed a felony drug conviction. 

From AP News: 

The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs.

In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job.

Disparate impact cases have often been brought against companies whose policies on hiring convicted felons result in high numbers of minority applicants being rejected for jobs. Target settled a similar lawsuit in 2018 after an investigation found that the company’s background check policy disproportionately resulted in Black and Latino applicants being denied employment. 

Trump’s executive order states, “It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.”

While the order mandates federal agencies not to pursue disparate impact cases, it doesn’t affect the ability of private law firms to do so. In fact, the Sheetz case may continue as law firm Outten & Golden and the Public Interest Law Center filed a motion to intervene and pursue a class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the claimants.

Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair, along with several former Democratic members of the EEOC, drafted a letter warning employers that the law hasn’t changed, and while federal agencies might stop pursuing these cases, there are plenty of private law firms willing to pick up the slack. 

​​“Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,” wrote the former EEOC officials.

What makes the timing of this pullback even more interesting is that it comes as the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a reverse discrimination lawsuit filed by a straight, white woman can continue. Marlean Ames filed a lawsuit against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that she was discriminated against after she was denied a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and was subsequently demoted, with a gay man replacing her. 

A federal court originally ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, believing they brought forth “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons” for not promoting Ames and found that Ames’ allegations didn’t meet the background circumstances requirement to prove reverse discrimination. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the ruling that the Supreme Court’s case law “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”

So in short, the barriers for Black people to prove workplace discrimination have increased on the federal level, while they appear to be decreasing for straight, white people. Love that for us. 

Both of these developments back a core tenet of the MAGA mentality: despite every law, business, and facet of American life essentially being built to their advantage, straight, white people are the real victims. 

SEE ALSO:

MA Workers’ Racist Rant Caught On Video

SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were ‘Too Many Black Girls’

Read more