Trump Administration's Efforts to Limit Disparate Impact Liability in Civil Rights Enforcement: The Sheetz Discrimination Lawsuit
Federal authorities are taking steps to dismiss a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain as part of President Donald Trump's administration's efforts to reduce the use of disparate impact liability in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that appear neutral can still violate civil rights laws if they create barriers that disadvantage certain demographic groups. Trump's executive order aims to minimize the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts.
The lawsuit against Sheetz, filed in 2024, alleged that the company's policy of not hiring individuals who failed criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American, and multiracial job applicants. Despite the EEOC's intention to drop the lawsuit, other parties are seeking to intervene and pursue their own class action lawsuit on behalf of the potential claimants.
Disparate impact, a concept recognized by the Supreme Court in 1971, prohibits practices that create discriminatory effects without relevance to job requirements. Trump's executive order seeks to eliminate disparate impact liability, arguing that it undermines meritocracy and promotes racial balancing in the workforce. The order reflects conservative concerns about racial imbalances being automatically attributed to discrimination.
In the Sheetz case, the EEOC had conducted an eight-year investigation following complaints from job applicants. The agency is now notifying potential claimants of its plan to dismiss the case, prompting one individual, Kenni Miller, to file a motion to intervene. The lawsuit alleges that Sheetz's background check policy disproportionately affected Black, Native American, and multiracial applicants.
Other cases, such as the 2018 lawsuit against Target and the 2020 settlement with Walmart, have leveraged disparate impact liability to address discriminatory hiring practices. Scrapping disparate impact liability could impact federal enforcement efforts and dissuade companies from proactively examining their practices to prevent discrimination.
The Justice Department and EEOC have moved to dismiss disparate impact cases, signaling a shift in civil rights enforcement priorities. While the Trump administration's order may reduce federal enforcement of disparate impact, private practices are expected to continue pursuing disparate impact claims to uphold civil rights laws.