Cracker Barrel Faces DEI Probe After Pro-Trump Law Group Complaint
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You're Thinking About Buying an EV, Trump Made Now the Time To Do It
If you've been on the fence about switching to an electric vehicle (EV), now might be the perfect time to make the leap. Tax credits for buying an EV were supposed to last through 2032, per CNBC, but President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' killed the tax breaks for new and used EVs. While the bill axed the credit, there's still time to take advantage before EVs become more costly. With the clean vehicle credit, qualified buyers can receive a $7,500 credit for new EV or a $4,000 credit for a used EV until Sept. 30 2025. The credit can reduce the cost of the vehicle by thousands; however, there are several restrictions to take note of. Read Next: Check Out: Here's what to know about the credit and why it might be the smartest time to buy. Clean Vehicle Credit Guidelines Not all buyers can cash in on the credit. According to the IRS, income ceilings stop at $150,000 for individual filers. That rises to $225,000 for heads of household and $300,000 for joint filers. According to Rob Dillan, automotive expert and founder of EVhype, there are price caps for vehicles, too — $55,000 for sedans and $80,000 for vans, SUVs and trucks. 'Fifty percent or more of a vehicle's battery must also be made with American parts, and the vehicle must be constructed with materials from the United States or countries the United States has trade agreements with,' he explained. 'These criteria will also rule out some EV models, so potential buyers will need to verify eligibility before purchasing.' In addition, the EV must weigh less than 14,000 pounds in gross vehicle weight, have a battery storage capacity of 7 kilowatt-hours or more, go through final production in North America, and be produced by a qualified manufacturer (excluding fuel-cell vehicles), per TurboTax. Learn More: Now Is the Time To Buy If you qualify, the credit could significantly lower the cost of buying an EV. 'The credit is going to make a big difference in cost, since the average transaction price of a new EV in 2025 is projected to be $56,910,' Dillan said. 'The federal tax credit is also likely to disappear in September based on timing alone, so now certainly seems to be the time for potential owners to move if they want to cash in on this financial bonus.' EV Considerations EV sales are up 11.4% year over year, according to Kelley Blue Book, with new models from Acura, Audi, Chevrolet, Honda and Porsche helping drive up sales. But before deciding whether an EV is the way to go, there are many things to consider. 'Depreciation is a big factor to take note of,' Dillan said. 'Some electric vehicle models hold only 49% of their value after two years, compared with 83% for gasoline-powered cars.' Reasons for the drop in value include battery life, limited charging stations, quickly evolving tech that becomes obsolete in older models and brand reputation, per Diminished Value of Georgia. With that in mind, it reported that the Tesla Model 3 and Hyundai Kona Electric are proving to have a higher resale value than previous EV models. Owning an EV will save you on gas, but Dillan said without the tax credit savings, 'the massive savings on maintenance and fuel bills are likely not enough to recoup the higher purchase price and possible depreciation hit of an electric vehicle.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on If You're Thinking About Buying an EV, Trump Made Now the Time To Do It 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
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Summer break is costing parents more than just time—here's how debt is becoming the new normal for child care
With five kids, paying for summer camp is one of the biggest items in our annual budget. I'm constantly shifting schedules, looking for more affordable ways to cover my kids' time out of school. And beyond the logistics of getting our family to multiple locations each day, the strain of paying for camp has been equally real over the years. In a world not built for modern parenthood (seriously—why do we still accept a 9-month school year designed for an agrarian society?), summer can feel like the peak of institutional abandonment. Between bosses who pretend the season doesn't exist and a government that acts like every parent has backup child care on call, it's hard not to ask: Why does no one seem to care that summer is such a massive source of strain for families? Turns out, the numbers back up the burnout. Families are spending big and still falling short A new LendingTree survey of more than 600 parents found that 62% of those who used summer child care or camps have gone into debt to cover the cost. On average, they're spending nearly $900 per child. Two-thirds of parents—66%—said paying for summer care is a financial struggle. Nearly half cut back on nonessentials, while 19% reported reducing spending on basic needs like food and utilities. And that pain sticks around: A quarter of parents took up to a year to pay off the debt, while some are still carrying last summer's balance even as the next one rolls in. 'Many parents don't have any other option but to pay for child care,' said Matt Schulz, chief consumer finance analyst at LendingTree. 'As much as they'd love to take a bunch of time off during the summer to spend with their kids, that just isn't a realistic thing for most Americans, so they're forced to shell out for child care. That extra cost often requires sacrifice.' Related: Child care costs over 50% of income in some states—and moms are done staying quiet Parents know the value but can't afford more Even amid the financial stress, most parents still believe summer care is important. A full 91% of parents surveyed said summer programs are worth the investment for their children's development and well-being. Still, 86% wish they could afford to enroll their kids in more camps or activities, and 36% say affordable options simply don't exist where they live. While nearly half of respondents receive some form of tuition assistance, the patchwork system doesn't meet the scale of the need—especially when families are already stretched thin the rest of the year. The emotional load is constant The money is one thing. The planning, coordination, and constant hustle? That's another beast entirely. Each summer brings a logistical obstacle course of drop-offs, pickups, sibling schedules, and desperate group chats about carpooling. For many moms, that mental labor is relentless. And it doesn't pause when the budget is tight or your inbox is overflowing. Support systems that could ease the burden—affordable child care, flexible work schedules, equitable co-parenting—are still the exception, not the rule. Which means summer ends up landing hardest on the very people already maxed out. The reality for single parents is even more pressing The math becomes even more unforgiving in single-parent households. According to WalletHub, single parents in New York are spending up to 45% of their median income on childcare. In New Mexico, it's as high as 36%, compounded by some of the lowest household incomes in the country. And that's just for care during the academic year—summer often adds extra weeks of uncovered time and an additional layer of debt. It's time to rethink the system We are long overdue for a national reckoning on what child care actually is: not a private family issue, but a public infrastructure need. Without summer care, many parents—especially mothers—can't work. Yet every year, we treat the cost and logistics of camp like an individual puzzle that families should just 'figure out.' Parents need a system that fully supports child care as a core part of family life—especially in the summer months. That includes public investment in summer programming, employer flexibility, and school calendars and community options designed for the actual lives we live—not the ones we were expected to live in 1955. Because surviving every summer shouldn't be a parenting badge of honor. It should be a policy failure we're finally ready to fix. Related: A push to pay parents to stay home is gaining traction—but moms say what they really need is child care they can afford Sources: 62% of parents using summer child care go into debt. June 2024. LendingTree. 62% of parents using summer child care go into debt. Best and worst states for working moms. May 2024. WalletHub. Best and worst states for working moms. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Caisse's $3.2-billion investment in a nuclear project is the kind of deal Canada wants — too bad it's in the U.K.
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's $3.2-billion investment in a new nuclear energy facility this week is the kind of deal Canada is hoping the country's largest pensions and institutional investors will step up to fund — but it's happening overseas, in England, alongside the U.K. government. The Quebec's pension giant's 20 per cent stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk was part of a final funding push to greenlight the project, of which the U.K. government owns 44.9 per cent. Once completed, the country's first new nuclear plant since 1995 is expected to reduce carbon emissions and provide more than 60 years of 'clean, reliable power to the U.K. grid, helping to boost the U.K.'s economy (and) strengthen energy security.' The deal is noteworthy for a couple of reasons: first, it capitalizes on a renewed push for nuclear power as countries search for less carbon-intensive options alongside a more recent desire to rely less on imported energy amid geopolitical tensions and trade upheaval driven by United States president Donald Trump. It also comes in a country where the government's push for more institutional investment in infrastructure is being met with some success, both domestically and abroad. In May, ahead of publication of a final review that could impose investment quotas on large pension providers in the United Kingdom, 17 of them — responsible for managing about 90 per cent of defined contribution pensions — signed an accord pledging to invest 10 per cent of their portfolios in assets to boost the economy by 2030. This will include investments in infrastructure, property and private equity, and half will be 'ringfenced' for the United Kingdom, an allotment projected to inject about £25 billion into the economy. The consortium backing the nuclear project, which is the first direct investment in nuclear by the Caisse, includes French energy operator EDF, British multinational energy and services company Centrica and investment partner Amber Infrastructure. This structure is not unusual for the Caisse, a seasoned global infrastructure investor. But a key draw is undoubtedly the project's financing structure. The U.K. government will foot the majority of that bill — an important consideration for institutional investors because of the potential for cost overruns common in infrastructure projects. Officials told the Canadian Press that the Caisse would begin receiving compensation right away, and that there are agreements with the British government that protect the pension fund's return in the event of overruns or significant delays. The project financing is coming through the U.K.'s National Wealth Fund, which was created by Keir Starmer's Labour government. It replaced the U.K. Infrastructure Bank and is intended to be the government's principal investment vehicle, with the express aim of creating conditions to draw in private investors. 'It's an ambitious project in terms of size and complexity,' said Sebastien Betermier, a finance professor at McGill University, adding that the Caisse is arguably one of the world's most advanced investors when it comes to new infrastructure builds referred to as 'greenfield' projects. He credited the U.K. government's success in forging partnerships with private investors to a strong track record of designing regulatory frameworks for privately-operated businesses and 'de-risking' investments for institutional investors. 'In this particular project, I believe the U.K. government was able to reduce the level of construction risk for investors and provide a dividend yield early on,' said Betermier, who has done extensive research on pensions. 'This project shows it is possible to generate win-win opportunities for governments and pension funds in infrastructure (projects), and hopefully we can learn from it here in Canada.' Past efforts by the Canadian government to include the country's pension funds in major infrastructure projects have largely fizzled, with complaints that the government isn't offering up projects with enough size and scale. Furthermore, potential projects haven't come with sufficient policy assurances or guarantees that the private investors will be adequately compensated for the risks they're taking, particularly if they're being asked to participate in building them. An exception has been the Caisse, which has a dual mandate to support economic development in Quebec alongside meeting investment objectives to pay pension beneficiaries. For example, the Caisse was a major investor in the province's The Réseau express métropolitain (REM) mass transit project, which was beset by cost overruns. The $6.3-billion cost of the Montreal light-rail system presented in 2018 had risen by 26 per cent by 2023. It rose further last year, reaching $8.34 billion. While the project was also backed by Quebec and the federal government, the Caisse was responsible for overruns. However, the pension manager structured the deal to derive revenue from ridership, advertising and real estate development, with a forecasted annual return of eight per cent over 30 years. The Caisse is also unique among Canadian pensions when it comes to energy transition. In 2021, the Quebec pension management organization pledged to divest completely from oil producers, which could have given the Caisse an edge with the U.K. nuclear deal. Plus, in May, CEO Charles Emond told the Financial Times that the Caisse plans to deploy more than £8 billion in the U.K. 'in the coming years,' increasing its exposure in the largest investment destination outside North America by 50 per cent. In the article, Emond praised the 'clarity' of its business environment, the 'ability to execute deals' and its 'welcoming approach' to investors. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that Starmer dispatched Rachel Reeves, the U.K.'s chancellor of the exchequer, to Canada to talk up the investment destination last summer. This was followed by a cross-country tour by U.K. trade officials looking to partner with Canada's pension funds to address, among other things, Britain's decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, with the lowest levels among G7 countries. When it comes to enticing Canada's pension giants to invest more at home, Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be trying to change the conversation: his focus is on the need to create infrastructure and energy corridors to unify and strengthen Canada's economy and reduce dependence on the United States. During his spring campaign, Carney pledged to use $150 billion of government funds to kickstart private sector investment in projects ranging from housing, defence production and transportation infrastructure to digital innovation and patents, critical minerals and energy. 'Our plan is expected to catalyze $500 billion in new investment over the next five years,' the costed platform said, a similar if slightly less ambitious target than the UK's plan to draw in £3 of private investment for every £1 of government money. But there are a few things the Canadian government has to get right with its 'Maple 8' pensions, including the Caisse, as well as other large institutional investors such as Brookfield Asset Management (which had been a rumoured front-runner to invest in the Sizewell C nuclear power station), if it hopes to replicate what the U.K. government has done. For starters, Canada's infrastructure efforts lack both coordination and a comprehensive evaluation framework, crowding out private investors rather than drawing them in, Betermier said in a research paper on infrastructure banks around the world, published by the C.D. Howe Institute in May. Government efforts since 2016 have led to sprawling commitments of more than $180 billion for infrastructure projects spread over 20 federal departments and agencies, primarily in the form of grants and subsidies, he pointed out, adding that provincial governments, too, have tried to get in the game over the past decade. 'Having multiple grants and investment agencies operating in the same market means there is a high risk of competition between the agencies,' Betermier wrote. 'Coordination between these organizations, along with regular engagement with the private sector, will be critical in order to generate maximum engagement from the private sector.' Canada could also take lessons from other governments, such as using loan guarantees to underwrite the risk of projects, as is done in the European Union's under the InvestEU model. Other infrastructure banks allow projects to move forward with the expectation that private investors will come aboard in the future, while Canada's flagship infrastructure bank needs to secure private investment partnerships for a deal to move forward. Large-scale public-private projects are also hobbled by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for short- and long-run performance, said Betermier, whose paper compared public infrastructure banks in Australia, California, Canada, the Nordic-Baltic region, Scotland and the U.K. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, launched with much fanfare in 2017 and a goal of every government dollar being matched by private sector investment of $3 to $4 — a target later reduced to $1 to $2 — failed to live up to that promise. By 2022, a House of Commons standing committee on transportation, infrastructure and communities recommended abolishing it. A couple of weeks ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the infrastructure bank would disburse $14.9 billion in 2027-28, well short of its $35-billion target. However, the PBO noted that the $1-billion target for Indigenous investments has already been met. Among the many reasons for the struggle in Canada, Betermier said, is that most of the country's infrastructure assets – including airports, seaports, railways, and utilities – remain publicly owned by federal, provincial or municipal governments. This stands in sharp contrast to countries like Australia and the U.K., where Canadian pensions have been, and continue to be, big investors in infrastructure assets that provide diversification, hedges against liability risks, and offer opportunities for high risk-adjusted returns and direct value creation. Canada's big pensions are ready for airport privatization. Are Canadians? 'Not theirs for the taking': Can the Canadian pension model survive a new era of politicization? Another Canadian pension giant puts brakes on China investment 'The lack of infrastructure assets available for sale to (pension and other institutional investors in Canada) has become a hot topic recently because it is one of the reasons why Canadian pension funds have decreased their domestic investments over the past decade,' he wrote. 'For infrastructure banks to successfully catalyze investment in infrastructure from private banks and large institutional investors, Canadian governments must actively support and commit to a private-sector role in the infrastructure market.' • Email: bshecter@ 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
