Drivers have new option for gas as Sheetz opens new location
Drivers will have a new option when they fill their vehicle with gas.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
News Center 7's Xavier Hershovitz is on Pump Patrol today. He is previewing the grand opening of the new Sheetz gas station in West Carrollton this morning on News Center 7 Daybreak from 4:25 a.m. until 7 a.m.
TRENDING STORIES:
District reacts to death of recent high school graduate killed in crash
Car crashes into Ohio marijuana dispensary, leaving large hole
Air Quality Alert in effect for parts of region today
As previously reported by News Center 7, gas prices across the Miami Valley are 16 cents cheaper compared to last week.
Prices range from $3.19 a gallon to $2.57 a gallon, according to gas experts.
Patrick De Haan of Gasbuddy.com says these prices will not last throughout the summer.
'(It) could be today, next couple of days, certainly it'll happen at some point this week,' he said.
The new Sheetz gas station will officially open on South Alex Road in West Carrollton. This will be Sheetz's 10th location in the Dayton area.
Hershovitz says there will be giveaways and prizes, including a $2,500 Sheetz gift card. It could help people fill up their tanks.
'I used to work in Columbus, so driving, I was filling the gas tank a couple of times a week,' said Scott Dennull. 'That's when it was a little higher.'
[SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Apple to pay $95 million in Siri eavesdropping settlement; Here's how to file your claim
Those who own Siri-enabled devices, including iPhones, MacBooks, and iPads, may be eligible to file a claim in Apple's $95 million settlement over allegations that Siri has been eavesdropping on consumers. [DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] As reported by CBS News, California resident Fumiko Lopez filed a lawsuit in 2021 claiming that several types of Apple devices have been eavesdropping on Apple consumers. The lawsuit claims that the private and confidential discussions Siri had allegedly listened to were being shared with third-party businesses that then targeted consumers with ads in Apple search and Safari, according to CBS News. 'Apple denies all of the allegations made in the lawsuit and denies that Apple did anything improper or unlawful,' the settlement website states. Apple agreed to the settlement earlier this year, and now consumers can file claims to get a piece of the $95 million agreement. TRENDING STORIES: Deputies: Wood thrown at officers in high-speed chase; ends in wrong-way crash on I-75 Injuries reported after car slams into Miami County home Child, adult dead after being pulled from SUV that went into pond Consumers who owned Siri-enabled iPhones and other Apple devices between Sept. 17, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2024, and 'experienced an unintended Siri activation during a confidential or private communication,' are eligible to file a claim, according to the settlement website. Consumers who owned iPhones, iPads, an iPod Touch, an iMac, a MacBook, an Apple Watch, an AppleTV, and/or a HomePod could all be eligible for payment. The amount consumers could earn ultimately depends on how many people file claims, but CBS News reported there's a cap of $20 per Siri-enabled device that a person owns. Apple consumers can file a claim for as many as five Siri-enabled devices, for a maximum payout of $100, according to the settlement site. To submit a claim, visit the settlement website here. The settlement's final approval hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2025, at 9 a.m., but there could be an appeal that would delay the payout, as reported by CBS News. The settlement payment will not come until later this year at the earliest. There is no confirmed date. Settlement payments, if you receive them, will be sent via physical check, e-check, or direct deposit. [SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government moves to drop Sheetz race case after Trump halts use of key civil rights tool
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases,' which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. A Supreme Court ruling Thursday could help open the door for more complaints against DEI policies that Lucas has said will be her priority. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Foster care agency begins donor-funded building expansion, increases access to services
An area foster care agency is breaking ground on building expansions to accommodate its growth. [DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Isaiah's Place, located at 61 Stanfield Road in Troy, announced on social media Friday morning that they are working with Level MB Construction on building expansions. 'Isaiah's Place has been one of the fastest-growing foster care agencies in the state of Ohio for the last year and a half. Because of this, we have used every square inch of our building to make room for offices, trainings, meetings, Child Advocacy observations and investigations, as well as therapy rooms for our families,' a spokesperson for Isaiah's Place said in the post. TRENDING STORIES: Add Unordered list of 3 trending stories for The foster care center broke ground this week on a fully funded 2,150 square foot expansion. The addition includes a large art training room, meeting rooms, observation rooms, and restrooms that are all accessible to individuals with disabilities. 'We're proud to build for those who are building stronger communities for us all,' a spokesperson for Level MB Construction said in a social media post. [SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
