A federal district judge in Baltimore has transferred a civil rights lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Sheetz corporation and two of its subsidiaries from Maryland to the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.

The EEOC earlier this year filed a civil rights action in which it charged the convenience store chain with discriminatory hiring practices — alleging the company, after making a conditional offer of employment, has a third party conduct a background check that includes a criminal history review of job applicants.

That history is not just limited to a person’s convictions.

The government charges in its lawsuit that Sheetz refuses “to hire all job applicants who they deem to have failed their criminal justice history screening.”

Sheetz and its related companies, Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP, do not have a procedure for those denied employment, based on their criminal histories, to appeal, the EEOC charges.

According to the lawsuit, Sheetz’s use of criminal history background checks violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it discriminates against Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and multiracial job applicants.

The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction against further use of the alleged discriminatory hiring practice as well as money damages for those who have been denied employment because of the process.

The investigation into Sheetz’s use of criminal history checks began with two complaints filed with the Pittsburgh-based EEOC office.

But, according to the lawsuit, there are more than 1,000 individuals nationwide who have been identified as possible victims.

The lawsuit contends the present system of using criminal history background checks in the hiring process has been in effect for at least the last nine years.

It was filed last April in Baltimore and is only in its initial stages, but in June, Sheetz filed a request to change the venue of the lawsuit from the District Court in Maryland, located in Baltimore, to the federal District Court in Johnstown.

The EEOC argued against the requested change, but in a 24-page opinion issued last Friday, District Judge Julie R. Rubin in Baltimore ruled that the transfer of the case to Johnstown “would better and more conveniently serve the interests of the parties and witnesses and better promote the interests of justice.”

The case was transferred Monday to Johnstown and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines.

The government argued that a key issue was that the case in Baltimore would be more quickly resolved than in the federal court in Johnstown.

Rubin concluded that “docket congestion” was not a major issue with respect to Johnstown.

The median time from filing to trial in the Johnstown Court is 41.3 months compared to 40.8 months in the District Court in Maryland.

She went on to report that there are 491 pending cases per judge in Johnstown compared to 407 pending cases per judge in Maryland.

Sheetz, Rubin wrote, “have met their burden to persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is appropriate.”

The Maryland judge indicated she reviewed other issues in her ruling that included “convenience” of the parties and the “interests of justice.”

For instance, the EEOC contended that as a government agency, it should be granted deference when it came to the site of the trial.

Sheetz, a convenience store chain with more than 24,000 employees and 700 stores in six states, including Maryland, retorted that the lawsuit brought by the EEOC has “little or no connection to Maryland.”

There are over 1,000 names of people listed who were not hired due to Sheetz criminal history screening — the potential class of defendants reside in 30 states, Sheetz emphasized.

Of the six states where Sheetz stores are located, only 34 are in Maryland and “no Sheetz employees responsible for administering and revising the policies involving criminal history reviews are located in Maryland.”

The two initial complaints that led to the lawsuit occurred in Pennsylvania, not Maryland, Sheetz continued to argue.

The Maryland judge concluded that while the EEOC should be shown deference in its choice of venue, “its decision weighs only slightly against transfer.”

Sheetz also noted that its employees who will be their witnesses in the case live or work in Pennsylvania.

The EEOC contended that its expert witnesses who are expected to testify are located throughout the United States.

The agency maintained that Baltimore “is far more accessible and convenient than Johnstown, Pennsylvania.”

The judge stated in her opinion, “all defendants’ policies and procedures, specifically those related to criminal history reviews, are developed, implemented and administered by employees working out of locations in Blair County, Pennsylvania.”

The review of applicant criminal history takes place in Pennsylvania and no employees who review the information and who administer the pre-hire procedures reside in Maryland, the judge stated in her ruling.

The court concluded the issue of convenience “tips in favor of transfer.”

In reviewing EEOC’s contention that traveling to Pennsylvania will be time-consuming and expensive, the Maryland judge concluded that argument “actually centers more on the convenience of its attorneys, which is not a proper consideration.”

Haines has scheduled a statue conference in the case for Oct. 24.

Sheetz is being represented by attorney Terrence H. Murphy of Pittsburgh.