Imagine showing up for a job interview, excited for a fresh start, only to get grilled about your teeth like you’re auditioning for a toothpaste ad. That’s the nightmare reality for Sheetz employees under the old “smile policy,” which demanded perfect pearly whites or risk the boot. This Altoona, PA-based chain, with over 670 stores across six states, just scrapped it effective immediately after years of backlash. It’s a big move for a family-owned giant that’s been family-friendly in other ways, like boosting parental leave and tuition aid. But is this the end of appearance policing, or just a PR pivot? Let’s unpack the drama, the fallout, and what it means for workers everywhere.
The policy’s roots run deep in Sheetz’s hospitality obsession, but it clashed hard with modern values. Born from a belief that a “pleasant, full, and complete smile” was key to customer vibes, it screened applicants with missing or discolored teeth (unless disability-related) and gave current staff 90 days to fix issues. Former Ohio worker Rose Counts got hit hardest hired with known dental needs from abuse, then told she’d never have been employed. Her story, plus others, blew up on Business Insider, forcing Sheetz to review and reverse. It’s a classic case of employee feedback flipping corporate scripts, but questions linger on equity and enforcement.
This isn’t isolated retail’s under fire for outdated rules amid low unemployment. Sheetz’s reversal aligns with trends like tattoo-friendly hiring, but it spotlights how appearance standards can gatekeep low-wage jobs. We’ll dive into the policy’s history, real employee stories, legal shade, and Sheetz’s other perks. From there, we’ll explore what’s next for inclusive workplaces. Buckle up this “smile” saga’s got teeth.
The “Smile Policy”: Sheetz’s Controversial Smile Mandate
Sheetz’s “smile policy” wasn’t a loose suggestion it was codified in the employee handbook as a strict, enforceable rule. The requirement barred applicants with “obvious missing, broken, or badly discolored teeth,” unless a disability exemption applied. The company doubled down on its stance, calling the rule “critical to creating hospitality” and tying it directly to its founding culture. For new hires, it was an immediate dealbreaker; for existing staff, it triggered a 90-day countdown to resolve dental issues, with HR stepping in for “mutual resolutions” if deadlines weren’t met. This wasn’t about hygiene or public health it was purely aesthetic, binding job security to a vision of customer-facing perfection where a “complete smile” was part of the uniform.
- Handbook language made the policy official, not optional.
- Applied a 90-day fix window for employees with dental issues.
- Rule focused on aesthetics, not hygiene or safety.
- Policy framed as “hospitality culture” since Sheetz’s founding.
The intent, according to executives, was to enhance the in-store experience in high-volume spaces where fuel, snacks, and coffee moved fast. Smiles, they argued, were a key ingredient in selling service and boosting customer vibes. But critics saw something more insidious: classism. Dental care is expensive, and retail jobs disproportionately attract workers from lower-income backgrounds who often lack access to affordable treatment. Enforcement also proved inconsistent some managers ignored the rule, while others applied it harshly, creating a patchwork of pressure across the chain. Even during the height of COVID-19, when masks covered every interaction, the policy remained in force, with supervisors insisting that the “smile standard” still applied. By then, it looked less like a customer-service tool and more like a relic, out of step with an era prioritising inclusivity and authenticity.
- Policy disproportionately impacted low-income workers.
- Managerial enforcement varied widely by location.
- Rule persisted through COVID mask mandates.
- Critics saw outdated values clashing with modern inclusivity.
The turning point came with the story of Rose Counts. Newly hired at a Sheetz store in Ohio, she was open about her dental issues, which stemmed from past abuse. A week into the job, her manager bluntly told her that she “should never have been hired” and demanded a timeline and cost estimate for her dental work. Feeling humiliated and defeated, she resigned. Her account, published by Business Insider, resonated far beyond her own experience, amplifying stories from others: a North Carolina veteran denied promotion due to tooth discoloration caused by medication, another worker terminated for “indefinite” dental issues. These accounts weren’t anomalies they revealed a pattern in which Sheetz’s policy effectively weaponised smiles, punishing vulnerable workers for circumstances often outside their control.
Backlash and Employee Stories: Voices That Forced Change
Rose Counts’ Ohio ordeal went viral after Business Insider spotlighted it, turning a personal nightmare into national news. Hired with Sheetz aware of her abuse-related dental damage, she was blindsided: “He informed me that he should have never hired me.” Forced to timeline repairs and costs, she quit feeling “very uncomfortable” and “defeated.” Her story resonated, drawing parallels to classist gatekeeping dental fixes ain’t cheap for retail wages.
- Rose’s hiring manager admitted she “should never have been hired.”
- Sheetz knew about her dental history yet enforced the rule.
- Repair timelines and cost demands pushed her to resign.
- Story framed policy as classist, given high dental care costs.
Other ex-employees piled on. A North Carolina worker, discolored from meds, got promotion-blocked: her boss warned the district manager would enforce the rule. “That’s extremely specific and extremely ballsy,” said Retail Warzone host Steve Rowland. Another, facing job loss over “indefinite” issues, called it “disgusting and classist.” Enforcement’s inconsistency amplified the mess store culture varied wildly by manager, per workers.
Sheetz’s Response: Review to Reversal in Record Time
Sheetz’s initial response was a cautious dodge, framed as a “review” of its policies. A company spokesperson leaned on tradition, noting, “We know how important a smile is to hospitality.” At the same time, they hinted that revisions could be on the horizon, adding, “We’re always reviewing policies to align with values.” This approach functioned as damage control acknowledging the roots of the policy in customer service culture, while also buying time amid growing backlash from the public, employees, and legal observers. It was a classic corporate tactic: soften the criticism with sympathetic language, while signalling flexibility without yet committing to change.
- Spokesperson tied the policy to hospitality history.
- Review announcement acted as a holding statement.
- Strategy aimed to ease backlash while avoiding immediate reversal.
- Tone suggested openness but left employees uncertain.
The pivot came swiftly. Executive Vice President Stephanie Doliveira announced the policy’s discontinuation, directly citing employee feedback as the catalyst for change. “Our culture centers on respect… We agree [the policy] isn’t aligned,” she declared, making the reversal effective immediately. This marked not just a policy tweak, but a full U-turn, with leadership pledging “equitable policies celebrating diverse identities.” Sheetz even reached out personally to former employee Marisa Counts, offering rehire and dental coverage as a gesture of good faith. Although Counts declined having already moved on she admitted the outcome made her feel “it wasn’t in vain.”
Legal and Industry Implications: Beyond the Smile
Employment lawyer Eric Meyer called the policy “unusual and problematic,” pointing out that it raised serious legal and ethical concerns. His main warning was about discrimination risks protected classes, such as those with certain disabilities or lower incomes, might have less access to regular dental care, making the policy inherently unfair. Experts noted it could even have crossed into violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, especially if employees with medical-related conditions were treated differently. While Sheetz included a disability carve-out to protect workers with legitimate medical reasons, the bigger issue of socioeconomic bias still loomed large, suggesting that even well-intended policies can disproportionately harm vulnerable groups.
- Disability and health carve-outs reduced but didn’t eliminate legal risk.
- Socioeconomic barriers meant uneven access to dental care.
- Policy highlighted tension between workplace image and equity.
- Experts warned of ADA and Title VII compliance challenges.
Retail’s evolving too. With unemployment at record lows, chains like Target and Wegmans (Fortune’s top workplaces) have abandoned strict appearance rules around tattoos and piercings, recognising that inclusivity helps attract talent. According to CSP’s Labor report, retailers are also leaning on family-oriented hiring practices and career advancement perks to stand out in a tight labour market. Sheetz, which ranked #3 in Fortune’s 2021 Best Retail Workplaces, has expanded progressive benefits such as 12 weeks of paid parental leave and $5,250 in tuition assistance moves that clash with the outdated smile rule and highlight how contradictory policies can undercut a company’s reputation.
Sheetz’s Other Perks: The Good, The Great, and The Future
Sheetz shines beyond the smile fiasco. In 2021, they upped parental leave to 12 weeks fully paid for birthing parents a leap from partial pay. Tuition reimbursement jumped to $5,250 annually, fueling career growth. Fortune ranked them #3 Best Retail Workplace in 2021, behind Target and Wegmans, for supportive culture.
- Parental Leave Win: 12 weeks paid for new parents, up from 6 weeks partial.
- Education Boost: $5,250 yearly tuition aid for employee development.
- Workplace Ranking: #3 on Fortune’s list for inclusive, employee-first vibe.
- Diversity Push: Post-policy, focus on “celebrating unique perspectives.”
These perks show Sheetz’s family-owned heart, but the smile rule was a blind spot. Future-wise, expect more inclusivity tattoo-friendly hiring, advancement paths. It’s a model for retail: listen, adapt, thrive.
Final Thoughts
Sheetz’s smile policy reversal is a victory for equity, sparked by brave stories like Rose Counts’. From legal risks to industry shifts, it highlights how outdated rules harm workers. With perks like paid leave and tuition aid, Sheetz can lead inclusive retail. The lesson? Employee voices matter amplify them, and policies evolve. Here’s to workplaces where smiles are optional, but respect’s mandatory.
