Another ‘Woke’ Policy For ‘Social Justice’ Under Biden

The Biden administration is advocating for the criminalization of refusing to hire individuals with a criminal record at the federal level. Although there is no existing federal law to support this stance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Biden is asserting authority to enforce its own mandates.

Recently, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Sheetz Inc. for utilizing criminal background checks in the hiring process for its over 600 convenience stores across six states. The agency’s lawsuit does not claim that Sheetz Inc. is inherently biased against minorities, but rather against minorities who did not pass the background check.

The rationale behind its enforcement actions against criminal background checks is based on the high incarceration rate of black men which “was nearly 7 times higher than White men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men,” according to EEOC Enforcement Guidance. John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University and an individual of African descent, noted “Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men.”

However, as per Team Biden’s perspective, individuals with a criminal record or felony are not labeled as ex-convicts or felons; instead, they are referred to as “justice-involved individuals.” The issue does not lie in certain groups having significantly higher rates of crime than others.

The challenge arises from the fact that many companies consider applicants’ criminal histories before making hiring decisions. The EEOC relied on statistical differences to support the classification of individuals with criminal records as a “protected class” under federal civil rights legislation.

The concept of “disparate impact” serves as an “Aladdin’s lamp,” for the EEOC, enabling them to uncover instances of discrimination based on criteria that may sometimes seem unreasonable or absurd.

Over the past five decades, the EEOC has used various justifications to expand its authority over the hiring practices of private companies. In 1989, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a trucking company in Florida for rejecting a Hispanic candidate with a history of multiple arrests and a conviction for theft.

Federal Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr. dismissed the claim with disdain, “EEOC’s position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics. Obviously a rule refusing honest employment to convicted applicants is going to have a disparate impact upon thieves.”

However, despite these and other legal setbacks, the EEOC has persisted in its actions. The EEOC maintains that companies are automatically considered at fault for not hiring individuals with criminal records unless they can prove that these applicants were given preferential treatment.

According to the EEOC, there is no proof that ex-convicts present an increased risk in the workplace, despite federal data showing that they are over 10 times more likely to be arrested compared to the general population.

In the Sheetz lawsuit, the EEOC’s legal documents highlight that black candidates are unsuccessful in passing the criminal background screenings “at a rate exceeding approximately 14.5%” while white applicants fail “at a rate of under approximately 8%.”

The disparity in background check failure rates based on race was not as significant as the difference in crime rates that the EEOC relied on to support its stance.

Is the organization depending on a “close enough for government work” standard for its Sheetz accusations — “exceeding approximately 14.5%” and “under approximately 8%”? It faces challenges with data analysis.

Federal Judge Roger Titus strongly criticized the EEOC’s arguments in a previous case related to alleged discrimination in criminal background screenings as “laughable,” “rife with analytical error,” “completely unreliable,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”

What offenses were committed by the individuals that the EEOC insisted Sheetz should have employed? I attempted to find incriminating evidence from the agency, but it did not offer any details.

In past instances, the EEOC tried to force businesses to “back pay” to individuals who were not hired because they falsified their criminal histories.

It has requested that companies provide financial compensation to job seekers with violent criminal backgrounds, including a “Hispanic female who was convicted of attempted murder for shooting at her husband in a college football stadium where he was working as a camera man.”

Perhaps the EEOC thought that woman would be ideal for addressing customer concerns? The Sheetz lawsuit showcases Team Biden’s interpretation of social justice.

The organization requested a federal judge to mandate Sheetz to furnish “appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, retroactive seniority and benefits or front pay in lieu thereof and an additional amount to offset adverse tax consequences of payment of a lump-sum monetary award in a single tax year.”

A favorable arrangement for individuals who have never served as Sheetz cashiers, right? Why not also mandate Sheetz to provide a pony to every former convict?

Congress did not aim to grant equal opportunities to felons and ex-convicts when it passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Allowing federal agencies to act as authoritarian regulators goes against the principles of the Constitution and rational thinking.

Crime might be a significant topic in the upcoming presidential election. If Republicans bring attention to the EEOC Sheetz case, Biden might face more scrutiny the next time he visits one of its stores for a campaign photo opportunity.