Pro-Trump group says Cracker Barrel's DEI programs violate federal, state civil rights laws
The complaints point to public documents, internal reports, and Cracker Barrel's own language to allege the company maintains illegal DEI frameworks, such as race- and gender-conscious hiring, leadership and promotion pipelines, which provide benefits to employees on the basis of protected characteristics. AFL also slammed Cracker Barrel for rebranding its dedicated DEI website to 'Culture and Belonging,' arguing that the name change did not halt Cracker Barrel from using 'diversity' as a proxy for race or sex.
Advertisement
'Americans are fed up with major American corporations serving up DEI as if it is entirely okay,' said AFL legal counsel, Will Scolinos. 'Treating people differently because of the color of their skin or their sex is not only wrong, it is illegal. AFL has fought DEI since the Biden Administration spent four years celebrating and encouraging its wholesale implementation across the country. Now, companies are retreating from the term 'DEI' but retaining their discriminatory policies. Cracker Barrel and other American corporations must take discrimination by any name off the menu once and for all.'
4 The complaints point to public documents, internal reports, and Cracker Barrel's own language to allege the company maintains illegal DEI frameworks.
Christopher Sadowski
AFL's complaint points to Cracker Barrel's Business Resource Groups (BRGs) as one example of alleged discrimination, outlined in public Securities and Exchange Commission documents, Cracker Barrel's website and other places.
According to AFL, these groups offer employment benefits only available to employees belonging to certain races or sexes.
Advertisement
The 'Be Bold' BRG helps 'cultivate and develop Black Leaders within the Cracker Barrel organization utilizing allyship, mentorship, and education to create a path to continued excellence,' Cracker Barrel's website states. Meanwhile, the HOLA BRG 'promote[s] Hispanic and Latino culture through hiring, developing, and retaining talent within Cracker Barrel.' Other BRGs revolve around LGBT folks, 'neurodiversity,' and women's issues, among others.
4 According to AFL, these groups offer employment benefits only available to employees belonging to certain races or sexes.
AP
Another part of Cracker Barrel's alleged promotion of discriminatory DEI practices cited by AFL includes the company's focus on 'attract[ing], develop[ing] and retain[ing] high performing talent with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives,' which is laid out on Cracker Barrel's 'Culture, Belonging and Inclusion' website underneath the heading 'STRATEGY TURNS INTO ACTION.'
This focus on promoting and hiring based on 'diverse' characteristics can be seen in action via Cracker Barrel's categorization in internal company reports of board members as 'Diverse' or 'Not-Diverse,' AFL points out.
Advertisement
Per a public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cracker Barrel notes that when 'evaluating potential candidates for Board membership' the nominating committee 'considers, among other things … diversity of age, gender, race, and ethnic background.'
4 This focus on promoting and hiring based on 'diverse' characteristics can be seen in action via Cracker Barrel's categorization in internal company reports.
Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
Cracker Barrel also proudly touts its Diverse Employee Leadership Talent Advancement (DELTA) program in public filings, which the company describes as an effort meant to identify 'diverse managers who have exhibited all the skills we value in our top-performing managers' and position them 'to advance to their next role.'
'Our new, robust diversity training includes education throughout all levels of the Company about unconscious and implicit bias and focuses on creating an inclusive culture and fostering a sense of belonging for all,' a Securities and Exchange Commission filing discussing the DELTA program also adds.
Advertisement
AFL argues that, in practice, these policies from Cracker Barrel appear to have achieved their intended effect, with the company's representation of women and ethnic minorities among Cracker Barrel professional staff, store level management and hourly workers, having each increased by at least 3% since fiscal year 2022. AFL said only women hourly staff remained constant across the same period, though Cracker Barrel touts in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings that 70% of its employee population is female.
4 Cracker Barrel also proudly touts its Diverse Employee Leadership Talent Advancement (DELTA) program in public filings.
AP
'Cracker Barrel's policies openly discriminate against heterosexual, white, and male employees in favor of diverse employees,' AFL's complaint, which asserts the policies violate Tennessee's Human Rights Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, argues.
'Discrimination advocates — under the guise of 'diversity' and 'equity' — have for years claimed that straight white men must be treated differently than diverse individuals by holding them to a higher evidentiary standard; however, the Supreme Court has directly addressed this claim, holding that 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,'' the complaint continues. 'Decades of case law hold that — no matter how well-intentioned — policies that seek to impose racial balancing are prohibited by Title VII.'
Through its complaint, AFL is calling for Cracker Barrel and the EEOC to launch investigations into the matter, including a review of internal communications and a probe into whether the company used contractors with 'reckless disregard' to circumvent civil rights laws. AFL is also requesting the Tennessee Attorney General and EEOC enforce state and federal laws that would compel the company to halt its allegedly discriminatory DEI practices.
Cracker Barrel did not respond to repeated requests for comment in time for publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Japan Trade Deal Raises Fears He Gave Away Too Much
(Bloomberg) -- US industries and protectionists are raising alarms with President Donald Trump's pact with Japan, saying it risks undercutting his stated goals of rebalancing America's trading relationships and reviving domestic manufacturing. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US Why the Federal Reserve's Building Renovation Costs $2.5 Billion The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Milan Corruption Probe Casts Shadow Over Property Boom Trump and his top negotiators on Wednesday hailed the deal as a potential model for other countries hoping to win tariff concessions, citing Tokyo's pledge to create a $550 billion fund for US investments. The president's decision to grant Japan relief on automobiles, however, provoked criticism that the agreement wouldn't address the main source of the US's trade deficit with Japan even as it disadvantages Detroit's Big Three. Around 80% of the US-Japan trade gap is in cars and car parts. Tuesday's announcement marked the latest signal that Trump is willing to negotiate on industry-specific duties on products including chips and pharmaceuticals, potentially undermining the most durable pillar of his tariff strategy. The reaction underscores the risks of the president's transactional negotiating style. Industries that have championed much of Trump's trade strategy and stand to benefit from robust levies on foreign rivals could be left in the lurch as his plans shift. 'Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no US content than it does North American built vehicles with high US content is a bad deal for the US industry and US auto workers,' said Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council that represents Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV. Trump defended his approach, which resulted in a deal to reduce Japan's country-specific rate to 15% and put US levies on cars and parts at the same level — lower than the 25% global charge on vehicles. 'I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan's Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!' Trump posted. His Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, argued in a Bloomberg Television interview on Wednesday that it was also ratcheting up pressure on South Korea and Europe to make additional concessions or risk their automakers being left at a significant disadvantage. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump's approach was breaking down barriers for US products abroad. 'Thanks to President Trump, these countries around the world are agreeing to open their markets to American-made products and goods for the first time, which will lead to a boom in sales and profits for American businesses right here at home,' she told reporters Wednesday. Even so, automakers and other industry stakeholders were crying foul Wednesday. They warned that giving Japan an unlimited reduction on auto tariffs undermines the use of those levies not just for cars, but also metals, semiconductors and other goods. 'Unlimited imports at tariff rates below existing Section 232 rates critically undermine the security objections' of the law and in many cases will actually encourage offshoring, said Jon Toomey, executive director of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, an advocacy group representing import-threatened industries that supports tighter trade controls. The provision on Japanese autos is far more expansive than the steel and aluminum tariff reduction Trump gave the UK, which allows a limited quota of imports to enter the US at a reduced rate. Industry-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are seen as a more lasting tool than Trump's country-based tariffs for boosting the competitiveness of US-made goods, since they rest on stronger legal footing, and some have endured across multiple presidencies. Industry groups also say the product-specific rates provide certainty needed to drive investment in domestic manufacturing plants. Other countries already are clamoring for sectoral tariff relief, and the US-Japan trade deal sends a signal that they are up for negotiation, people familiar with the matter said. Two of those individuals predicted the agreement will also add leverage to the auto and oil industries' pleas for relief from steel duties. 'It doesn't make sense to allow for unlimited vehicle imports at 15%, while charging rates of 25% on auto parts and 50% on steel,' Toomey added. It's also unclear how and when the $550 billion investment fund might come to pass — or if it will prove to be as illusory as investment pledges Trump secured during his first term from China in exchange for scaling down tariffs. Although Beijing promised in 2020 to buy $200 billion in additional US agricultural commodities and other goods, ultimately only 58% of those purchases materialized amid the pandemic, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Trump administration officials cast the Japan deal, as well as frameworks with Indonesia and the Philippines, as incentive for other major partners, including the European Union and South Korea, to bring their best investment and purchasing pledges to the table. 'It spurs other deals along,' White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made clear the investment plan helped Japan secure its tariff reduction, telling Bloomberg Television: 'They got the 15% rate because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism.' Lutnick said on the network that under the arrangement Japan will serve as a financier providing equity, loans and other support for manufacturing plants, infrastructure and other projects in the US. Other countries will be under pressure to follow the investment model, said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity because details haven't been formally announced. The investment deals could prove especially attractive to Trump, who frequently extols planned spending in the US announced since his January inauguration. The president and top administration officials also regularly tout the surge in revenue from new tariffs, which have already brought in $113 billion this year, according to the Treasury Department. The US-Japan deal's emphasis on investment suggests the promise of more revenues has taken priority over the push to protect domestic industries, one person familiar with the matter said. While direct foreign investment in the US could help expand domestic manufacturing and artificial intelligence capacity, it won't necessarily make the country's exports more competitive on its own. And some analysts raised doubts about whether Japan's promises to open its markets to US products would prove meaningful. The administration cast Japan's concession to accept cars made to US federal motor vehicle safety standards instead of subjecting them to additional regulatory requirements as a boon for Detroit. Even so, a major impediment to US auto sales in Japan is the American designs themselves — not just trade barriers. Put simply, Japanese consumers are less interested in driving Fords and GMs than Americans are in Toyotas and Hondas. Japan sells the US about 84 cars for every one the US sells there. 'American cars that are big just don't comport well with the needs, desires and demands of the Japanese public' said Colin Grabow, an associate director at the Cato Institute's trade policy center. 'It's unclear what the payoff here is.' --With assistance from Keith Laing, Hadriana Lowenkron, Joe Mathieu, Tyler Kendall and Stephanie Lai. Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border What the Tough Job Market for New College Grads Says About the Economy How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Axios
9 minutes ago
- Axios
Fourth federal investigation launched at George Mason for racial bias
The Trump administration this week launched its fourth investigation in four weeks into George Mason University, Virginia's largest public university. Why it matters: It's the second public university in Virginia that's been targeted by the administration and the Justice Department since June. The big picture: DOJ's most recent investigation into George Mason alleges racial discrimination in the school's admission and scholarship decisions. It follows an investigation the department launched the week before, which alleged the Fairfax school used race as a deciding factor in faculty hiring and promotions. The U.S. Department of Education started its own probe into the school's alleged racial discrimination in hiring and promotions earlier this month in response to a complaint by "multiple professors." And DOE kicked off July with an inquiry into alleged antisemitism at Mason. In statements, the school has denied all the allegations and said it will cooperate with the investigations, per the Washington Post. The intrigue: In response to the probes, George Mason's Board of Visitors and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares hired Torridon Law, a firm co-founded by President Trump's former attorney general William Barr, the Post reports. The hiring of that firm prompted the George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors to issue a vote of no confidence in the school's Board of Visitors this week. The association is concerned that the Board of Visitors and the Trump administration are trying to fire the school's president, Gregory Washington, who is Black, according to a news release from the group.
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge
Columbia University's long-overdue crackdown on the dozens of students who violently took over Butler Library, and the agreement it reached Tuesday with the White House, mark significant if belated steps toward accountability. For nearly two years, these students have occupied campus buildings, spread terrorist propaganda, praised convicted terrorists, posted Nazi-style antisemitic flyers, smashed doors, disrupted classes, harassed Jewish students and openly endorsed 'liberation by any means necessary' — including the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre. Backed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 90 pro-terror student groups, they have platformed speakers linked to US-designated terrorists, called for the death and expulsion of Jews and Israelis, and urged Hamas to target Jewish Americans. Now they are finally facing consequences. Yet after months of calling for accountability, I take no pleasure in their expulsions and long-term suspensions. Let's be clear: the students who stormed Butler Library got exactly what they deserved. Any functioning society must mete out penalties for those who break the law, and college campuses, which play a central role in shaping young Americans, must uphold that principle. Still, as I watch the surge of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American hate rise on campus, I can't help but ask: What if the administration had acted sooner? Could earlier intervention — as I have been calling for since Oct. 12, 2023 — have prevented this descent into terror-glorifying chaos? Could these students — many of whom came to campus with limited knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — have avoided radicalization if the university had acted earlier? Would it have been spared its current reputation as a hub of antisemitic and anti-American extremism? It shouldn't have taken lawsuits, federal scrutiny and campus-wide chaos for Columbia's leadership to finally do the right thing. But now that the administration finally seems ready to take antisemitism and support for terrorism seriously, the effort mustn't stop with students. If these disciplinary actions are more than just a PR stunt — unlike the quiet reversal of suspensions after the violent Hamilton Hall takeover and the administration's habit of speaking out of both sides of its mouth — then the university must confront the source of the ideology that fueled this movement. Because the truth is these students didn't invent this hatred; they learned it on campus. They were radicalized by Columbia professors who called Oct. 7 a 'military action,' who expressed 'jubilation and awe' at the rape, murder and torture of Israeli civilians and who cheered on their violent takeover of university buildings. Many of them tenured and untouchable, they've long escaped consequences. But if Columbia is genuinely committed to solving this crisis, it must begin by holding faculty members accountable for their role in fueling campus unrest — and addressing the ideology behind their students' actions. Columbia, like many North American universities, has become a breeding ground for what I call 'American Intellectual Antisemitism,' a belief system that casts Jews as white settler-colonialists conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in an effort to create a Jewish supremacist ethnostate. Unlike the loud, swastika-waving hatred of the far right — with its grotesque and conspiratorial caricatures of Jews as society's omnipotent parasites — academia's insidious form of antisemitism cloaks itself in scholarly jargon and moral pretense. Dressed up in flimsy scholarship and ideological distortions, it rewrites history, ignores archaeological and scholarly records and reframes violence as justice. By manipulating words like 'oppression' and 'decolonialization,' it recasts ancient bigotry into fashionable academic critique — but make no mistake, it is antisemitism all the same. Unless Columbia directly confronts the professors who indoctrinate students into this worldview, its crisis will only deepen. While students like Mahmoud Khalil (who still refuses to condemn Hamas for slaughtering civilians) and Mohsen Madawai (who once led a Fatah student group and praised his cousins in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) are the public face of this movement, its true architects are the professors. The responsibility — and the blame — rests with them. The surge of illegal pro-Hamas encampments on American campuses last year revealed that, left unchecked, campus unrest can quickly escalate into a national crisis. The question now is not only what actions Columbia will take to pull this bigotry out by its roots, but whether other universities will learn from its grievous mistakes. At a time when antisemitism and support for terrorism are reaching record highs, one thing remains crystal clear: What begins in the faculty lounge doesn't always stop at the campus gates. It's time to confront the academic machinery that fuels this hatred and dismantle it at the source. Shai Davidai is an activist, podcaster and former professor at Columbia University who is currently writing a book on American Intellectual Antisemitism.
