Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—W.D. Pa.: In case alleging racially discriminatory hiring practices, EEOC could calculate temporal span based on charge of gender bias, (Mar 19, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

While the male applicant’s charge only asserted gender bias, the EEOC investigation found that he suffered race discrimination when his offer of employment was rescinded due to his criminal record.

In a case alleging three companies (collectively, “the employer”) discriminated against racial minorities by using criminal justice history information as a basis for declining to hire applicants, the EEOC could calculate the 300-day temporal span for bringing claims by using the filing date of an EEOC charge filed by a male applicant who alleged only gender bias. Denying the employer’s partial motion to dismiss seeking to calculate the date based on a different applicant’s subsequently filed EEOC charge that did allege race bias, a federal court found that since the EEOC investigation found that the male applicant suffered race discrimination, “the date of his charge covers racial discrimination during the 300 days before filing that charge” (EEOC v. Sheetz, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00231-SLH (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2025)).

2016 sex-discrimination charge. On June 6, 2016, the male applicant filed an EEOC charge alleging the employer subjected him to unlawful sex discrimination by rescinding a job offer based on its policy of not hiring anyone who as a felony conviction in their past. He claimed this policy had a disparate impact on male applicants in violation of Title VII.

2018 race-discrimination charge. On March 9, 2018, a Black applicant filed an EEOC charge against the employer alleging she was not extended an offer of employment based on a criminal background check. She claimed the policy against hiring individuals with certain convictions had a disparate impact on African-American individuals in violation of Title VII.

EEOC determination. On May 18, 2022, the EEOC issued administrative determinations against the employer arising from investigation into both applicants’ charges. Specifically, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the employer’s use of criminal history information in its screening process had a disparate impact on Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial job applicants regarding all positions companywide.

After conciliatory efforts failed, the EEOC filed the instant action asserting that since at least August 10, 2015, and continuing into the present, the employer engaged in unlawful employment practices and race discrimination by using criminal justice history information as a basis for declining to hire applicants for all positions in violation of Title VII.

Partial motion to dismiss. The employer filed the instant motion seeking to dismiss claims that predated May 13, 2017, because any claims prior to that date were only eligible using the filing date of the 2016 charge alleging gender discrimination. The employer claimed this date was improper since the charge did not allege race discrimination—the action EEOC brings.

Section 706(e)(1). Section 706(e)(1) of Title VII provides in relevant part that “…[a] charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred….” Thus, one calculates the timeframe for claims as being 300 days before the charge was filed. Here, the charge alleging gender discrimination was filed on June 6, 2016, which would make the beginning of the 300-day timeframe August 10, 2015. On the other hand, the charge alleging race discrimination was filed on March 9, 2018, which only allowed claims to be brought dating back to May 13, 2017.

The employer argued that because the male applicant did not claim race discrimination, the EEOC could not use his charge for the date bookend in its claims against the employer. The EEOC countered that according to controlling case law, the agency can institute enforcement of an action for race discrimination uncovered during the EEOC’s investigation of the male applicant’s sex discrimination charge. The employer asserted that the EEOC conflated two issues, and the case law it relied upon did not cover the issue at hand.

Authority to expand investigation. Specifically, the employer claimed that the case law addressed the EEOC’s authority to expand an investigation and litigate issues that were the subject of an expanded investigation. As one court explained, “any kind of discrimination which is like or related to allegations contained in the charge and which is developed in a reasonable investigation of that charge may be included in the judicial complaint.” What the case law didn’t resolve, argued the employer, was the temporal scope of the class of individuals for whom the EEOC can seek relief. Further, it would be improper to file a broadened charge based on the investigation using a temporal range of a discrimination charge that did not include the newly investigated discrimination

Temporal range. The court disagreed. “It stands to reason that for some cases the EEOC must use a charge of discrimination that does not necessarily include discrimination of a certain type later discovered in the EEOC investigation.” For instance, in a case where one person filed a charge—unlike here, where there were two—the EEOC must be able to use the only charge of discrimination available, and if the agency discovered other types of discrimination not identified in the charge in its investigation, case law supports its ability to bring those other charges. Thus, with only one charge of discrimination available, the EEOC must use the date of the existing charge of discrimination to calculate the 300 days under Section 706(e)(1). “The law shouldn’t be applied differently to cases involving single individuals versus multiple individuals.”

Here, while the male applicant’s charge only asserted gender bias, the EEOC investigation found that he suffered race discrimination when his offer of employment was rescinded. Because the date of his charge covered racial discrimination during the 300 days before filing that charge, “the EEOC claims asserted since August 10, 2015, comports with the text of Section 706(e)(1), as well as well-established case law.”

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00231-SLH.

Judge: Haines, S.

Attorneys: Debra M. Lawrence for the EEOC. (Littler Mendelson) for Sheetz, Inc.

Companies: Sheetz, Inc.; Sheetz Distribution Services, LLC; CLI Transport, LP

Cases: Procedure Discrimination SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination PennsylvaniaNews