Sheetz Lawsuit: EEOC Exit and the Ex-Employee Pressing On

The Sheetz lawsuit is a federal employment discrimination case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accused the Pennsylvania-based convenience store chain of using a criminal background check policy that disproportionately rejected Black, Native American/Alaska Native, and multiracial job applicants. The EEOC filed the case in April 2024, then moved to abandon it in June 2025 after a Trump executive order directed agencies to stop pursuing disparate impact claims. A former Sheetz shift supervisor named Kenni Miller intervened the night before the government’s dismissal motion, and as of early 2026 the case remains alive with him as the driving plaintiff.

What the EEOC Accused Sheetz of Doing

The EEOC filed suit on April 17, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, naming Sheetz, Inc., Sheetz Distribution Services, LLC, and CLI Transport, LP as defendants.{¹} The case grew out of charges filed years earlier by two western Pennsylvania residents: Joseph Gorsuch in 2016 and Rachael Whethers in 2018. Both said they had lost job opportunities because of the company’s conviction-based screening. In May 2022, the EEOC issued formal determinations finding “reasonable cause” to believe Sheetz had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.{²}

The core allegation: Sheetz ran every applicant through a criminal history screen regardless of the position, and anyone a company representative deemed to have “failed” was denied employment.{³} The EEOC described this as a blanket policy applied without any individualized look at whether a particular conviction had anything to do with the job.{⁴} The practice, according to the complaint, had been in place since at least August 2015.{¹}

The lawsuit did not accuse Sheetz of intentional racial discrimination. It relied on disparate impact — the theory that a facially neutral policy can violate civil rights law if it disproportionately harms a protected group and the employer can’t show the policy is necessary for the job. The rejection numbers laid out the gap. Roughly 14.5% of Black applicants failed the screening, compared with about 13.5% of multiracial applicants, 13% of Native American/Alaska Native applicants, and less than 8% of white applicants.{⁵} The EEOC argued the screening was not “job-related and consistent with business necessity” and that less discriminatory alternatives were available.{³}

Why the Federal Government Walked Away

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.” The order gave the EEOC chair and the Attorney General 45 days to review all pending investigations and lawsuits relying on the theory and “take appropriate action.”{⁶}

The Sheetz case was one of the first to fall. On May 22, 2025, the EEOC notified potential class members it would withdraw and no longer seek relief on their behalf. On June 6, 2025, the agency formally moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the executive order, and asked the court to delay final dismissal for 60 days so affected individuals could find private counsel and intervene.{⁷}

The retreat extended far beyond Sheetz. Under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, the EEOC closed pending disparate impact charges across the board, and a September 2025 internal memo directed that all remaining disparate impact investigations be discharged by the end of that month. Claimants whose charges rested solely on disparate impact were sent right-to-sue notices by October 31, 2025.{⁸} The executive order does not change the underlying statute. Disparate impact liability remains in Title VII, a law Congress amended in 1991 specifically to include the theory, and private plaintiffs can still bring these claims even when the federal government declines to.{⁶}

The Former Employee Keeping the Case Alive

The evening before the EEOC filed its dismissal motion, Kenni Miller moved to intervene. Miller, a 32-year-old Black man from Altoona, applied for an evening and overnight shift supervisor position at a Sheetz location in June 2020. He received a conditional offer, passed a drug test, and worked as a shift supervisor for just over a month before being terminated after a background check flagged a prior felony drug conviction. According to his filings, no one conducted an individualized assessment of whether the conviction was relevant to the supervisor role, and he was unaware of any performance complaints during the weeks he worked.{²}

Miller’s proposed complaint brings both federal and state claims. Under Title VII, he argues he can “piggyback” on the original Gorsuch and Whethers charges as an “aggrieved person.” He also brings a claim under Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), which prohibits employers from using conviction records to deny employment unless the conviction relates to the applicant’s suitability for the specific job.{²} He is represented by the law firm Outten & Golden and by Ben Geffen, a senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.{⁹} Geffen described the move plainly: “When the government steps back, we step in.”{⁴}

What Sheetz Says

Sheetz denies the allegations. On its jobs FAQ page, the company states it does not automatically disqualify applicants with a criminal background and reviews each background check on a “case by case basis.”{¹⁰} Sheetz filed a partial motion to dismiss in mid-2024, which Judge Stephanie L. Haines denied in a memorandum opinion on March 14, 2025.{¹¹}

The company also opposed Miller’s intervention. In a July 2025 filing, Sheetz argued Miller had no statutory right to intervene because he was not among the original charging parties, that his allegations were not identical to those of the original plaintiffs, that letting him in would set the litigation back by a year, and that Miller and his lawyers were primarily seeking class-representative status for financial gain. Sheetz specifically opposed the Pennsylvania CHRIA claim, arguing it fell outside the scope of the original federal action.{} The EEOC, before its own exit was finalized, filed a June 2025 statement supporting Miller and saying he met the requirements for mandatory intervention under Title VII.{¹²}

Where the Case Stands Now

On June 24, 2025, Judge Haines partially granted the EEOC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the agency would be formally dismissed only after the court fully resolved Miller’s motion to intervene. The court noted that depending on how the intervention question came out, the case could be dismissed entirely.{⁵} Government records identify Miller as an “Intervenor Plaintiff,” suggesting the court has at least recognized his status in the litigation.{¹³} Docket entries from March 2026 show continued activity, including the withdrawal of one of Miller’s attorneys.{¹¹} Similar patterns have played out in other dropped EEOC cases nationwide, where individual claimants have picked up private counsel and pressed on.{¹⁴}

1
Clearinghouse. EEOC v. Sheetz Complaint
2
Public Interest Law Center. Proposed Complaint in Intervention
3
EEOC. EEOC Sues Sheetz for Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practice
4
Outten & Golden LLP. Sheetz Job Applicant Criminal History Discrimination Case
5
University of Michigan Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. EEOC v. Sheetz Case Summary
6
The White House. Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy
7
CBS News Pittsburgh. Government Moves to Drop Sheetz Discrimination Case
8
Jackson Lewis. EEOC to Halt Investigations of Disparate Impact Claims
9
Public Interest Law Center. Taking Action: EEOC
10
Sheetz. Jobs FAQ
11
PACER Monitor. EEOC v. Sheetz Docket
12
Altoona Mirror. Altoona Sheetz Employment Practices: Miller Asserts Rights to Intervene
13
GovInfo. EEOC v. Sheetz Case Details
14
Spotlight PA. Sheetz Discrimination Case and Disparate Impact Policy