to this part:

=================
"The agency 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 said."
===========================

I can't tell if this is saying that of black applicants who failed a background check, 14.5% were denied employment while of white applicants that failed a background check, only 8% were denied employment. If that's the case, that would clearly be wrong. But I'd be really surprised if Sheetz was offering employment to 85.5% of blacks and 92% of whites that failed a criminal background check. I think what it says is that of ALL black applicants, 14.5% failed the criminal background check and were denied employment for that reason, while of all white applicants, less than 8% failed a criminal background check and denied employment.

In this latter scenario, I understand the "disparate impact" on employment, but imo, that should be justifiable. Just like there's going to be a disparate impact on blacks for a law firm requiring that new associates have a law degree and blacks are underrepresented as a percentage of law school graduates compared to their representation in the population as a whole.

If you're black and you want to work for a law firm, go get a law degree, and if you want to work for Sheetz, don't commit crimes and get a criminal record.