Latest news with #JonathanSkrmetti
Newsweek
a day ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Cracker Barrel Faces DEI Probe After Pro-Trump Law Group Complaint
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Cracker Barrel has been targeted by a law firm seeking to defend President Donald Trump's policies amid allegations that the restaurant's diversity drives are "discriminatory." America First Legal (AFL) has called for an official probe into the Southern restaurant chain "for potential violations of federal and state civil rights laws stemming from its discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies." Some of Cracker Barrel's initiatives to develop employees are focused specifically on supporting workers who are women, Black, LGBTQ+, or Latino, according to AFL. This means they "appear to offer employment benefits that are only available based on an employees' race or sex," the Washington D.C.-based law group said in a press release on Monday. The firm has formally requested that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti investigate Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. for alleged violations. Newsweek reached out to Cracker Barrel via email for comment outside of regular working hours. A Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant in Naperville, Illinois, as seen on April 12, 2002. A Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant in Naperville, Illinois, as seen on April 12, 2002. Tim Boyle/Getty Image Why It Matters The case comes amid a wider cultural debate about inclusion and diversity practices. Trump has been highly critical of DEI policies. Since his return to office earlier this year, federal agencies have rolled back the initiatives across military and government platforms and attempted to scrap them in schools and universities. Claims that DEI in general is discriminatory have been subject to pushback in the spheres of education, politics, and business. Most U.S. business leaders think dropping DEI is a bad idea, according to a national survey, whose findings were reported by Forbes earlier this month. Some 77 percent of executives believe that DEI initiatives are positively correlated with improved financial performance, while 81 percent said that DEI policies have bolstered customer loyalty. What To Know America First Legal describes itself on its website as a "nonprofit law firm founded to unapologetically and boldly defend the rights of everyday Americans." The organization, which has been described as pro-Trump by the press and whose name pays homage to the "America First" movement, stated: "We are at the forefront of the battle for our nation." In a press release issued by AFL law firm on Monday, AFL Senior Counsel Nicholas Barry called Cracker Barrel "almost as American as apple pie," but said it may also be "discriminating against its employees," which, they say, must not go unchallenged under civil rights laws. The dining chain, founded in Tennessee in 1969, has nearly 660 restaurants across 44 states, serving around 230 million guests each year, according to Cracker Barrel's website. The press release said the law firm "has formally requested that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti investigate Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Cracker Barrel) for potential violations of federal and state civil rights laws stemming from its discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies." The law group claims the restaurant "rebranded its dedicated DEI website last year from 'Diversity and Inclusion' to 'Culture and Inclusion,' yet continues to promote the company's apparently unlawful commitments to provide unique employment benefits to certain races and sexes." It says that Cracker Barrel "promises to 'attract, select, develop, and retain high-performing talent with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.'" Specifically, AFL referenced the chain's Business Resource Groups (BRG), claiming its Be Bold BRG aims to "cultivate and develop Black Leaders," while its HOLA BRG is designed to "promote Hispanic and Latino culture through hiring, developing, and retaining talent." Its LGBTQ+ Alliance BRG aims to foster awareness and support within that community, and its Women's Connect BRG is focused on "empowering, educating and engaging" female members of staff to help them "grow their careers." "Even if any employee may technically join a BRG, certain associated benefits appear to be restricted to specific identity groups," AFL alleges. What People Are Saying America First Legal Senior Counsel Nicholas Barry, in a press release: "Cracker Barrel is almost as American as apple pie. Their store is full of classic Americana items, and it brands itself as a bastion of southern hospitality. If Cracker Barrel is discriminating against its employees and trying to hide it, it is failing to live up to its own brand and internal standards. The government should vigorously enforce its civil rights laws and ensure any such discrimination is rooted out and destroyed." America First Legal Counsel Will Scolinos, in a press release: "Americans are fed up with major American corporations serving up DEI as if it is entirely okay. 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." Elise Smith, the CEO and co-founder of the tech startup Praxis Labs, told Time magazine in February: "Regardless of what you think about the term DEI, this work will continue, because fundamentally it does drive better business outcomes. Fortune 500 companies are trying to figure out: How do we serve our clients and customers, knowing that there's a ton of diversity within them? How do we bring our teams together to do their best work?" Jennifer McCollum, president and CEO of nonprofit gender-equity organization Catalyst, told Forbes this month: "Inclusion has never been a liability — it's a competitive advantage and a business imperative." She added that "organizations committed to the principles of opportunity and fairness behind DEI will be the ones that outperform their peers, retain talent, and build lasting trust." What Happens Next The legal process is now underway after America First Legal filed its complaints with the Tennessee attorney general and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Monday. Cracker Barrel has yet to respond publicly as the case shapes up to be another battle in the wider war against DEI.
Time of India
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Tennessee files lawsuit against US Education Department over Hispanic-serving college grants
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, in partnership with the conservative legal group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), has filed a federal lawsuit against the US Department of Education, challenging a grant programme that allocates federal funding to colleges where Hispanic students comprise at least 25% of the student population. The legal challenge, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, contends that the federal programme unlawfully discriminates based on ethnicity and exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. Federal grants under fire for ethnicity-based criteria At issue is the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) programme, established under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act. Designed to bolster institutions with substantial Hispanic enrollment, the programme funds academic development, STEM tutoring, infrastructure improvement, and student support services. In FY 2024 alone, Congress appropriated over $228.9 million for the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions subprogramme. The plaintiffs argue that the programme's eligibility criteria exclude institutions, such as many in Tennessee, that serve Hispanic students but do not meet the federal enrollment threshold. According to the complaint, this results in an unconstitutional barrier that penalises schools for their racial and ethnic composition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo "Un-American and unconstitutional": Skrmetti criticises federal policy In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Skrmetti denounced the grant structure, calling it a violation of the nation's foundational principles. 'A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional,' Skrmetti said to Associated Press. The Department of Education has not yet commented on the case or the allegations raised. Echoes of Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling The lawsuit follows the precedent set by the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, in which the court struck down race-conscious admissions policies. SFFA, led by Edward Blum, was the driving force behind those cases and has since pursued multiple legal actions targeting diversity-based criteria across sectors. The current suit cites the same constitutional principles, namely, equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and challenges the legitimacy of using ethnicity as a condition for federal funding. Part of a broader Anti-DEI legal movement The case aligns with broader conservative efforts to dismantle programmes that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which opponents claim institutionalise race-based preferences. These efforts gained significant momentum during President Donald Trump's administration and continue to shape the national legal and political discourse. The lawsuit asserts that by conditioning funding on racial demographics, Congress has exceeded its spending powers and instituted a system of racial preference incompatible with constitutional mandates. Legal representation and case details The case, officially titled State of Tennessee v. US Department of Education (No. 3:25-cv-270), is being argued by a prominent team of conservative litigators: Thomas McCarthy and Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy, Adam Mortara of Lawfair, and Aaron Bernard of the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. If successful, the lawsuit could have sweeping implications for how federal funding is distributed to higher education institutions across the country, potentially curtailing ethnicity-based support mechanisms that have been in place for decades. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
TN Attorney General sues Dept. of Education for discrimination
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joined 'Students for fair admission' to file an anti discrimination lawsuit against the US Department of Education. The lawsuit claims the Hispanic Serving Institution program, or HSI program, is discriminatory and to the lawsuit, the reason the program discriminates is because it only provides federal funding to needy students who go to colleges and universities that already have a student body that is comprised of 25% or more of Hispanic students. AG Skrmetti cited the University of Memphis as an example, which is ineligible for the grant even though enrollment is 61% minorities. 'A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional,' said Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. 'In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that racially discriminatory admissions standards violate the law, and the HSI program's discriminatory grant standards are just as illegal. Treating people differently because of their skin color and ancestry drags our country backwards. The HSI program perversely deprives even needy Hispanic students of the benefits of this funding if they attend institutions that don't meet the government's arbitrary quota.' AG Skrmetti The lawsuit is seeking to end the HSI program's 'nonsensical, divisive, and discriminatory requirement and declare the limitation on access unconstitutional.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Reuters
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Tennessee sues US Education Department over grants for Hispanic-serving colleges
June 11 (Reuters) - Tennessee's Republican attorney general and the group behind the U.S. Supreme Court's decision barring race-conscious college admissions filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging a U.S. Department of Education program that awards grants to universities if Hispanics comprise 25% or more of their student bodies. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, argued in a lawsuit, opens new tab filed in federal court in Knoxville that Congress unconstitutionally exceeded its authority by creating a program that discriminates on the basis of race. "A federal grant system that openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity isn't just wrong and un-American—it's unconstitutional,' Skrmetti said in a statement. The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The group's arguments would appear to align with the efforts by Republican President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate programs it views as furthering the objectives of diversity, equity and inclusion, which the White House calls discriminatory. The lawsuit takes aim at the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, which Congress created as part of Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act with the goal of supporting colleges and universities that serve a significant percentage of Hispanic students. In the 2024 fiscal year, Congress appropriated at least $228.9 million for one sub-program, the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, the complaint noted. The lawsuit said colleges awarded grants can use the millions of dollars they receive to fund new lab equipment and STEM tutoring for low-income students, among other purposes. But the lawsuit said that while the state of Tennessee operates many colleges and universities that serve Hispanic students, its schools are ineligible for funding "because they don't have the right mix of ethnicities on campus." The lawsuit argues that the program as currently constituted was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power and that its discriminatory criteria runs afoul of the equal-protection principle included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit cites the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2023 decision rejecting race-conscious policies long used by American colleges and universities to increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students on American campuses in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Those cases were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit founded by Blum, who has pursued a series of cases since then challenging programs designed to bolster racial diversity in government and Corporate America. The case is State of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, No. 3:25-cv-270. For the plaintiffs: Thomas McCarthy and Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy; Adam Mortara of Lawfair; and Aaron Bernard of the Tennessee Office of the Attorney General
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
TN Attorney General co-leads letter opposing amendment that would limit state AI regulation
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is looking to keep Artificial Intelligence regulations up to the states. On Friday, Skrmetti joined a coalition of 36 other state attorneys general in leading a letter to oppose a federal ban on state regulation of AI products. The letter warns that an amendment added in the Budget Reconciliation Bill by the U.S. House and Energy and Commerce Committee would impose a 10-year ban on states from enforcing 'any state law or regulation addressing AI and automated decision-making systems.' FBI issues warning about AI voice impersonations of US officials According to the attorneys general, the bill will affect hundreds of existing and pending state laws that were passed and considered by both Republican and Democrat state legislatures. Skrmetti's office said states have been at the forefront of keeping consumers protected from the dangers of AI. 'The combined efforts of the states and the federal government have been, at best, barely enough to protect consumers from Big Tech,' said Skrmetti. 'AI has incredible potential but amplifies every risk we've seen from Big Tech and creates new risks we don't fully understand. Eliminating state oversight through this reconciliation amendment guarantees Americans will suffer repeated violations of their privacy, consumer protection, and antitrust laws.' ⏩ The bipartisan letter urges Congress to reject the amendment, stating that it would 'leave Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI' and would wipe any state-level frameworks that are already in place. To read the entire letter, . Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
