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
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: What Trump should be doing instead of attacking the Fed
Republicans have a problem. Their signature economic package for 2025, the tax bill President Trump signed into law in early July, is deeply unpopular. Voters think it will harm the poor and reward the wealthy, and sober analysis suggests they're right. The last time Republicans passed a law like this, in 2017, voters pummeled them in the subsequent election. As the leader of his party, President Trump bears responsibility for selling the tax bill to voters. He's not doing that. Instead, his main economic messaging effort this summer has been a sustained attack on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. Trump has routinely suggested he'll try to fire Powell, perhaps hoping the Fed chair will crack under pressure and quit before his term expires next May. He has hurled a dictionary of insults at Powell, calling him 'dumb,' 'stupid,' 'major loser,' 'knucklehead,' 'numbskull,' 'Mr. Too Late,' and 'the worst Federal Reserve chairman in history.' Since Powell has shown no signs of quitting, Trump has suggested he'll announce a "shadow" Fed chair who will offer different monetary policy guidance until Powell's term finally ends. Trump's war on Powell serves at least three purposes. His stated reason for browbeating the Fed is to compel sharp interest rate cuts to stimulate the economy. But Trump also has a penchant for creating villains he can blame when something goes wrong, and as head of a cautious central bank, Powell fits the profile. Trump also manages his many controversies by creating new kerfuffles to distract people from existing ones. Threatening mayhem at the Fed has been a way for Trump to deflect attention from tariff-related inflation, slowing economic growth, and now, the mushrooming Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The Fed is not really causing Trump any problems. It has kept interest rates steady since last December, one source of calm in financial markets otherwise roiled by Trump's tariffs and their many unintended consequences. The Fed most likely will end up cutting rates by later this year or early next, just not as dramatically as Trump wants. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Tax bill blowback should be a more pressing concern for Trump. As analysts figure out what's actually in the megabill, the political peril for Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Most voters don't know all the details, but they already dislike the tax law and could oppose it even more strongly once it begins to affect real people. A recent CNN poll found that 61% of people oppose the bill while only 39% approve. Fifty-eight percent say Trump has gone too far in cutting federal programs, which most likely reflects the blunt-force DOGE cuts overseen by Elon Musk earlier this year. And in the CNN poll, approval for Trump's handling of the federal budget was a lowly 37%.In an Associated Press poll, 62% of respondents said the tax bill would help the wealthy, while just 20% felt it would help low-income people. The portion saying it would harm 'people like me' was twice the portion saying it would help. Trump's approval rating on handling the economy in that poll was a scant 38%, with 60% disapproving. Trump is now deeply underwater on what used to be one of his most winning issues. Voters are correctly assessing the complicated bill. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 40% of earners would actually suffer a net loss of income from the bill, mainly because of cutbacks in food aid, Medicaid, and other health subsidies. The top 20% of earners would gain about $6,500 in annual after-tax income, while the savings for the top 1% would be $30,000. That's highly regressive, in that it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Healthcare cuts are likely to be a particularly controversial aspect of the legislation, which could increase the number of uninsured Americans by 11 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Other GOP policies could boost that number to 16 million within 10 years, and real people will start to feel the cutbacks in 2026. Republicans have essentially given voters every plausible reason to blame them for increasing healthcare costs, lost coverage, and medical disasters. Democrats will be eager to help heap it on. They're already erecting billboards near closing rural hospitals blaming Trump for the shutdowns. Whether such claims are accurate or not, Republicans put the target on their own backs. When Republicans passed a big tax-cut law in 2017, during Trump's first term, they thought voters would reward them for a bill that financially benefited a majority of Americans. It didn't work out that way. The law was unpopular from the start, with many Americans feeling it heavily favored businesses and the wealthy. While that law harmed few people, many felt it did nothing to help them. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats outperformed, gaining 40 seats in the House of Representatives and retaking control of the chamber. The 2025 tax cut law is more punishing than the 2017 vintage, because of the cuts to food aid and healthcare. And Republicans have a far narrower edge in the House this time around. If the pattern holds, Republicans will take a beating in next year's midterms, losing the House and maybe the Senate. If Trump has a plan to prevent that, he might want to reveal what it is. The Fed will probably be cutting interest rates by the time of next year's election, blunting Trump's vilification of the central bank. He'll need somebody else to blame for everything voters dislike, unless he finds a way to persuade them that things are better than they think. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. 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
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Markets rally after Trump announces tariff deal with Japan
Financial markets around the world have rallied after Donald Trump announced a trade deal with Japan and speculation that a similar deal would soon be reached with the European Union. . Share prices rose sharply in Tokyo, where the Nikkei index of leading Japanese companies increased by 3.5%. European markets followed, with the FTSE 100 gaining 0.4% to close at a fresh record high of 9,061. US markets posted further gains after opening in New York, with the Dow Jones rising by almost 1% and the S&P 500 by 0.5%. They were boosted by reports that the EU and US were closing in on a deal similar to the one the US struck with Japan, a 15% tariff on European imports. The EU is weighing €100bn (£87bn, $118bn) worth of tariffs on US imports if Trump does not agree a trade deal by the end of next week. Shares in Japanese carmakers rallied sharply. Shares in Toyota, the world's biggest carmaker, surged by more than 14% and there were gains for Honda, Mazda and Subaru. London-based companies with the highest exposures to US tariffs – including GSK, AstraZeneca and Diageo – were among the biggest risers on the FTSE 100. Interactive Russ Mould, investment director at the stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'News of a trade agreement between the US and Japan is fostering optimism among investors that further deals might be reached before punishing tariffs come into force.' Under the deal announced by the US president late on Tuesday, Japanese imports to the US will incur a 15% tariff, compared with the 25% level Trump had threatened to impose from 1 August. The levy, paid by US importers, remains above the 10% 'baseline' global tariff that had been imposed by Washington while the two countries negotiated. The Japanese car industry, which accounts for 8% of jobs in the country, had been reeling from the threat of a 25% tariff on shipments to the US market. Vehicles and automotive parts account for more than a quarter of all Japanese exports to the US. Trump claimed that the deal would open the Japanese market to US products including cars, trucks, rice and certain agricultural products, many of which had proved to be a sticking point in negotiations. The deal with Japan followed an agreement with the UK in May, as the first major country to reach a deal with the White House, which included limiting an increase in US tariffs on most British goods to 10%. Financial markets were thrown into a tailspin on 2 April by Trump's 'liberation day' tariff announcement, when he unveiled blanket levies of 10% and higher individual rates of up to 50% on dozens of markets, including those of economic allies and rivals alike. Trump paused the higher tariff rates for 90 days to allow for negotiations with trading partners after a dramatic sell-off in the US bond market. The markets staged a recovery, as investors bet that Washington would ultimately back down from the toughest measures. Interactive Investors latched on the president's reluctance to see through extreme threats by betting that 'Trump always chickens out', or Taco for short, in a Wall Street maxim influencing trading decisions. Economists said the deal with Japan, which is the world's fourth-largest economy and is the US's fourth-largest import market, could be a prelude to further progress in negotiations with other big trading partners, including the EU. Shares in EU carmakers rallied on Wednesday, with Volkswagen up by more than 5% as traders bet the US-Japan deal could be a blueprint for an agreement between Washington and Brussels. Trump has set a deadline of 1 August for reaching a deal with the EU and other trading partners. Washington struck a deal with the Philippines on Tuesday, while the US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has said talks would resume with China next week, ahead of the 12 August deadline Trump has set for a tariff agreement with the world's second-largest economy. However, investors warned that the tariff rates on US imports were higher under the deals than they were before Trump entered the White House, increasing inflationary pressures for American households and rattling global supply chains. 'Why are the markets jubilant this morning? Because even a higher tariff is preferable to continued uncertainty,' said George Lagarias, chief economist at the financial services company Forvis Mazars. 'But this is hardly a catalyst for long-term optimism. If the deal with Japan is the standard by which the negotiation with the EU will go, then investors and businesses should begin to price in a deterioration of the macroeconomic backdrop.' The Japanese prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, said the deal was 'precisely the result of my consistent advocacy and strong lobbying of the US since I proposed 'investment over tariffs' to President Trump at our White House summit in February'. Ishiba denied reports that he planned to announce his resignation after his coalition lost its upper house majority this week. 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
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Trump's AI Action Plan Means For U.S. Tech Leadership
Washington, DC - January 23: AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks speaks with President Donald J Trump as ... More he signs executive orders in the Oval Office. On July 23, the Trump administration released its 'Winning the Race – America's AI Action Plan.' The administration's new AI action plan comes after months of policy shifts, industry dealmaking and public input. Here is a breakdown of what it contains and how we got to this point. In the plan's preamble, President Trump states: 'Today, a new frontier of scientific discovery lies before us, defined by transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence… Breakthroughs in these fields have the potential to reshape the global balance of power, spark entirely new industries, and revolutionize the way we live and work. As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.' This sets the stage for a plan that acts as a blueprint for an acceleration strategy prioritizing infrastructure investment and innovation over regulation. The Journey of AI And American Leadership The administration's focus on AI dates from Trump's first term, when he became the first president to issue an executive order on the topic. Since 2019, maintaining and extending American leadership has been the priority. During the first week of his second presidential term, he issued a new directive to remove barriers to American leadership in AI, setting the tone for deregulation and positioning AI at the center of the U.S. geopolitical, trade and economic strategy. The plan announcement followed a flurry of activity during the first 180 days of Trump's second term. It started with the revocation, on inauguration day, of Biden's AI executive order viewed as an inhibitor to innovation with regulatory overtones, emphasis on equity, civil rights, enforcement of consumer protection laws and safeguards against bias, discrimination, infringements on privacy and other harms from AI. The January 23 executive order set the stage for 'innovation, driven by the strength of our free markets, world-class research institutions, and entrepreneurial spirit,' and asked for the creation of an action plan to 'sustain and enhance America's global AI dominance.' The National Science Foundation followed with a request for information to support the development of the plan. This resulted in more than 10,000 responses and exposed a divide between the industry and civil society. The industry supported the push for global leadership and resisted regulation. Civil society yearned for accountability and expressed concerns about job loss, copyright infringement, disinformation and privacy. Two major announcements signaled the private sector's central role in AI infrastructure buildout. In January, OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX launched Stargate, a $500 billion initiative to expand U.S. AI capacity. In July, companies pledged over $90 billion at the Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit to fund data centers and power infrastructure. Both efforts underscore a market-led push to scale AI while advancing U.S. technological dominance. On the government side, the White House moved to harness federal purchasing power to steer AI development. In April, the Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to appoint chief AI officers, publish AI strategies, and set rules for using powerful systems like generative AI. Their 'AI Use Memo' encouraged agency AI adoption and the removal of risk-averse barriers to innovation. A companion 'AI Procurement Memo' focused on buying American-made AI tools and simplifying procurement. Together, the policies use public-sector demand to influence industry behavior. Export controls on advanced AI chips also shifted sharply this year. In April, the administration imposed a ban on Nvidia's and AMD's processors, citing national security and limiting China's access. But by July, as part of a rare earths trade deal, restrictions were eased to allow sales with export licenses. Supporters said the move balanced security with economic interests; critics warned it could erode America's competitive edge. This policy reversal marked a notable departure from the Biden-era AI Diffusion framework. On the legislative front, Congress rejected a House-passed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations when the Senate voted 99–1 to strip it from H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Instead, H.R. 1 was enacted, allocating funds for AI in defense, transformational AI models at the Department of Energy, and tech solutions for rural hospitals. With states able to legislate freely, the move increased pressure on the White House and Congress to work on federal legislation or preemption to avoid a patchwork of state laws. The AI Action Plan Unveiled at the 'Winning the AI Race' summit on July 23, the plan crystallizes a vision to ensure U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence. Introduced by President Trump and top officials, the plan rests on three pillars: accelerating innovation, building AI infrastructure, and leading international AI diplomacy and security. The 28-page document identifies over 90 federal policy actions across these three areas. During an interview with CNBC, Greg Barbaccia, U.S. Federal Chief Information Officer, called the plan a 'whole of government strategy.' It emphasizes removing regulatory barriers, expanding domestic chip manufacturing, and enabling large-scale adoption of AI across government and industry. Key policies in the plan include expedited and modernized permitting for data centers and semiconductor fabs, along with national initiatives to expand the skilled workforce, particularly electricians and HVAC technicians, to meet rising infrastructure demands. The plan also emphasizes exporting American AI leadership through full-stack partnerships with allied nations, combining chips, software, models and standards. It directs the Commerce and State Departments to coordinate with industry to deliver secure AI packages abroad. The plan outlines an ambitious international strategy to shape global AI norms and secure supply chains. It calls for engaging with like-minded allies while promoting interoperability and adoption of U.S.-led AI standards. To safeguard national interests, the plan includes policies to restrict outbound investment in adversarial nations, defend against intellectual property theft, and ensure AI infrastructure is free from foreign adversary technology, notably from China. This combination of infrastructure buildout and AI diplomacy aims to position the U.S. as a leader not only through innovation, but through standard setting, global commerce and adoption and diffusion of American technology. The plan calls for updates to federal procurement rules to ensure that frontier models used by the government are free from top-down ideological bias and aligned with principles of free expression. It offers no details on how this will be implemented. The document does not define how objectivity will be measured, which agencies will oversee compliance, or what enforcement mechanisms will apply, leaving execution to future regulatory or agency-specific action. A central pillar of the action plan is a sweeping deregulatory agenda aimed at removing federal and state barriers to AI innovation. The plan directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to launch a public Request for Information to identify federal rules that hinder AI adoption. Simultaneously, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 14192 'Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,' is tasked with working across all federal agencies to identify, revise or repeal regulations and guidance that unnecessarily constrain AI development or deployment. The plan also calls for integrating deregulatory criteria into funding decisions. Agencies are instructed to assess a state's AI regulatory climate and potentially limit discretionary funding to states with regimes that may impair program effectiveness. This can be seen as a direct reaction to the failed attempt at a moratorium for state-level AI legislation. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is directed to examine whether state AI laws interfere with its federal mandates, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is instructed to review prior investigations and consent decrees to ensure they do not impose undue burdens on AI innovation. While framed as a strategy to streamline innovation, the plan's approach draws scrutiny about the politicization of regulatory agencies. The recommendation to use agencies like the FCC and FTC to roll back enforcement or pressure states on funding decisions has raised concerns among critics about potential federal overreach. However, aligning agency policy with national economic goals is both lawful and can be characterized as necessary to maintain U.S. competitiveness in a fast-moving global race. Importantly, the plan frames AI as both an economic and national security imperative. Frontier models must reflect American values and free speech, and infrastructure must be free of foreign adversary technology. The approach is explicitly deregulatory and pro-industry, with global ambitions. The action plan's release marks a major milestone in the administration's strategy to align public and private efforts around a unified AI agenda—and signals that Congress will now face pressure to translate these principles into national legislation. What This Means For The Future Of AI The plan marks a significant moment in U.S. tech policy. The document outlines a clear national direction that embraces acceleration, private-sector leadership, and deregulation as drivers of AI growth. It offers a coherent industrial policy that links AI development to economic competitiveness, infrastructure expansion, and national security. It will shape federal priorities, influence international AI diplomacy, and accelerate domestic capacity building in the months ahead. Yet the plan's deregulatory stance also reveals its limits. It largely disregards the concerns raised by civil society during the public consultation process, which emphasized transparency, accountability, and protections against disinformation, bias and surveillance. Instead, the plan places regulatory rollback and centralized control of agency behavior at the core of its strategy, raising questions about whether innovation is being pursued at the expense of democratic safeguards. The real test now shifts to Congress. With no comprehensive federal law in place, lawmakers will face growing pressure to translate this accelerationist vision into legislation that balances innovation with oversight, fosters growth without fragmentation, and builds public trust in the transformative technologies reshaping American life. Whether Congress can keep pace with this vision remains to be seen.
