MASSIVE blow to DEI

jecornel · April 22

lawyers are salivating.

https://twitter.com/freethinkerinc/status/1781688729783988638?s=12&t=dkNRjvDmdRc4ve3WYj-5ZA

jecornel · April 22

where is the MSM coverage on this tidal wave of a decision? Crickets

Bob_C · April 22

Big Ern loves him some DEI.

Fire_Marshall_Bill · April 22

Mainstream media would rather do stories about Trump jurors, and whether the judge will give him May 17th off for Baron's high school graduation.

thechatch · April 22

large corps will continue to use DEI/ESG guidance. Too many federal dollars in play for them not to. Mid size and small businesses will have to weigh against potential lawsuits.

WestlinnDuck · April 22

DEI is alive and well in the dementia patient's EEOC. Team dazzler all over disparate impact in spite of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Statutes.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-hiring-criminals-now-racist-too

How You Know The Joker Is Running Things...

BY TYLER DURDENMONDAY, APR 22, 2024 - 05:25 AM

Via The Publica Team,

Sheetz Convenience Stores Accused Of Discriminating Against Minority Job Seekers By Refusing To Consider Applicants With Criminal Record

A popular US convenience store chain has been hit with a civil rights lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against minority job seekers because it requires applicants to have no criminal record.

On April 18, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Sheetz Inc., accusing the 24/7 convenience store chain of having discriminatory hiring practices that targeted minority applicants.

According to the lawsuit, Sheetz has maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for records of criminal conviction and then denying them employment based on those records.

As a result, the EEOC is accusing Sheetz of “disproportionately screening out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants.”

This is despite the fact that the lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz’s hiring practices were motivated by race.

According to the EEOC press release, Sheetz’s hiring practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence.
“Even when such necessity is proven, the practice remains unlawful if there is an alternative practice available that is comparably effective in achieving the employer’s goals but causes less discriminatory effect.”

The EEOC began its probe into Sheetz after two job applicants filed civil rights complaints alleging employment discrimination.

The agency then found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.

By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit states.

Fire_Marshall_Bill · April 22

It's all systemic racism you white supremacists. Check your privilege. Have you offered your third bedroom to a homeless person of color yet? Your children moved out and it's not being used.

WestlinnDuck · April 22

Cali still all in on DEI and reparations. If Cali gets its Genealogy Office up and running I will finally get a definition of Black from a leftard. Maybe Buck can give us a read on whether we should invest in Ancestry.com as DNA tests may be required.

https://instapundit.com/

OFF THE RAILS: In 2020, during the “Time of Anxiety” over George Floyd’s death, the California Legislature created a Task Force on Reparations. In doing so, it appeared to me that the legislators were violating a fundamental rule of governance: Never create a commission to “study” a controversial problem unless you are relatively certain that you’re going to want to follow its recommendations.

Reparations for African Americans in California are an unusually bad idea. To begin with, this was never a slave state. And if the reparations are not for slavery, but rather for racial discrimination over the course of California’s history, then the problem is that other racial and ethnic groups have suffered from mistreatment at least as much (and in the case of the Chinese more). Yet, from the start, the Task Force appeared to be stacked in favor of reparations.

When the Task Force’s report came out in June of last year, it did indeed back extensive reparations. There were some awkward moments, but it looked to me that Governor Newsom realized all this had been a mistake and was going to sweep the report under the rug.

I’m starting to think that maybe I was wrong about sweeping this under the rug. Or rather I was right in the first place: It’s very hard for a legislature to turn away from the recommendations of a task force it created.

Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to create a “Freedmen’s Agency.” Shades of Nuremberg: The Agency will be required to have a “Genealogy Office,” which will be charged with the task of tracing the pedigree of those who apply for reparations to ensure their eligibility. If the bill passes the Senate and Assembly and it is signed by the governor, the new agency will violate another fundamental rule of governance: Never create a bureaucracy unless you want it to have the power to carry out its mission.

I have a hard time imagining that this will end well.