🚨Breaking: Cracker Barrel's ERGs on the Defense

Now that The ERG Recipe Tour is officially over, I have some mental bandwidth to dive into ALL of the legal drama, structural warnings, and language lessons that ERG programs need to be paying attention to right now.

Here's The Latest

• Cracker Barrel

• Apple vs. LA Dodgers: A Case Study in Language

• The FCC Has Entered The Chat

• T Mobile & Verizon

• University of Louisville

  • What This Means for Your ERG Program

This week, Cracker Barrel became the latest company under attack by America First Legal (AFL), a far-right legal group closely tied to former Trump officials. Their complaint? That Cracker Barrel’s Business Resource Groups (BRGs) are racially discriminatory and violate employment law.

AFL has been targeting companies they associate with “Americana culture.” In their own words, they called Cracker Barrel “almost as American as apple pie.” That line alone tells you everything about their strategy. They’re going after brands that represent traditional American identity, ones they believe “serve their customer base” and are therefore betraying that base through DEI efforts.

So far, that list has included:

• The NFL

• NASCAR

• Major League Baseball

• Dick’s Sporting Goods

• BlackRock

• Target

• Morgan Stanley

But here’s the reality: it’s not just “Americana brands”. Tech companies are being pulled into this too. No one’s fully off the radar—especially if your company has ERGs with public-facing language around race, identity, or equity.

What’s really being challenged?

Here’s what AFL is focusing on in their complaints:

• That ERGs (or BRGs) offer benefits only to specific identity groups

• That they use language like “develop Black leaders” or “empower women”

• That even if anyone can technically join, the stated purpose excludes others

• That company-sponsored identity-based programs create discriminatory employment conditions

In the Cracker Barrel filing, they specifically highlight:

• That the Black BRG states it supports the development of Black leaders

• That the Latino BRG “provides opportunities for Latino members”

• That the LGBTQ+ alliance “provides a space for LGBTQ+ people”

• That the Women’s BRG “helps women grow personally and professionally”

They even cited the use of the word “promotes” as problematic—suggesting it could imply actual promotion or professional advancement opportunities tied to race, sex, or orientation.

Apple vs. LA Dodgers: A Case Study in Language

Two other companies were also hit this year by America First Legal—Apple and the LA Dodgers—but the outcomes were very different.

✅ Apple

AFL sent a letter to Apple’s board this year. But notably, Apple’s ERGs weren’t mentioned at all. The complaint focused on hiring benchmarks and DEI language related to executive recruitment.

Despite having ERGs, Apple avoided using language that tied benefits to identity-specific membership. Their public content never says things like “our Black ERG exists to develop Black leaders,” and as a result, they’ve dodged scrutiny in that area.

❌ LA Dodgers

Meanwhile, the Dodgers got flagged for almost the exact same reasons as Cracker Barrel. And yes, they also call their groups BRGs.

The AFL complaint pointed directly to language like:

• “Empowers our Asian employees”

• “Promotes resources for professional development for the Latinx community”

• “Helps women find connections and grow their careers”

• “Fosters the growth of the Dodger Black community”

All of those were cited as examples of discriminatory practice. The title BRG didn’t shield them. In fact, when your program is more formal and business-facing, the stakes are even higher.

The FCC Has Entered The Chat

If you thought ERG-related backlash was only coming from groups like America First Legal, think again. The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is now part of the conversation.

In 2025, two major companies, T-Mobile and Verizon, came under FCC review while attempting to move forward with major merger and acquisition activity. And while both were seeking approval, a surprising sticking point emerged: their DEI practices, including how they operate their ERGs.

That is right. The FCC is not just reviewing policies or public statements. It is reviewing actual ERG operations.

Let’s break this down.

What is the FCC, and why does it matter here?

The FCC is the federal agency that oversees communications industries. That includes broadband, wireless networks, and telecommunications. When companies like Verizon or T-Mobile try to merge or acquire new licenses, the FCC must approve the transaction.

In both cases, the FCC issued letters asking for more information—not just on compliance with nondiscrimination laws, but also on how their DEI efforts and ERGs align with legal requirements.

This is one of the first times we’ve seen companies proactively defend their ERG structure as part of a federal regulatory review. The FCC didn’t ask about ERGs directly—but T-Mobile and Verizon clearly saw that their programs could come under scrutiny and responded in detail.

Here’s what the FCC required around ERGs

It’s important to clarify that both of those letters—the ones detailing ERG structure—didn’t come from the FCC. They were sent by the companies (T-Mobile and Verizon) to the FCC. Each company laid out exactly how their DEI and ERG programs are structured, likely to demonstrate compliance and avoid regulatory friction.

And here’s what’s interesting: after sending those letters, both companies were cleared by the FCC to move forward with their requests.

That alone makes these letters worth a closer look—especially for those of you in the DEI space. If you’re trying to understand what kinds of practices the FCC considered acceptable, these responses offer a few helpful signals.

Here are some of the practices both companies highlighted in their responses that appeared to satisfy the FCC’s review:

• ERG membership must be open to all employees

  There can be no statements, even indirect ones, that suggest a group is only for people of a specific identity. Saying an ERG exists to empower a certain race or gender is enough to raise concern. This is consistent with the complaints I’m seeing from America First Legal as well.

• ERG activity must be approved and overseen by corporate leadership

  Both T-Mobile and Verizon committed to ensuring that ERGs operate under centralized HR or executive oversight. This reinforces a point I have been making for a while now—these are no longer employee-led groups in the traditional sense. If the company is approving events and setting guidelines, then it is company-led with employee participation.

• ERG membership must not influence promotions or performance reviews

  The FCC stated clearly that no special treatment, compensation, or career advancement can be tied to ERG membership. If your company is exploring ways to reward ERG leads or weigh their work in reviews, you need to tread carefully. The regulatory direction is moving away from that model.

• No protected characteristic should be used to gatekeep access to groups or events

  This includes asking employees to identify themselves before attending. Even something as small as a registration form question can imply exclusivity. Both companies noted that no distinctions will be made on the basis of identity when it comes to granting permission to join or attend.

There’s one exception

Side note—there was one ERG program that was officially shut down recently, which is always sad to see.

The University of Louisville disbanded all five of its faculty and staff ERGs, including groups for Black employees, women, LGBTQ+ employees, Latinx employees, and Asian employees. This was done in direct response to Kentucky’s new state law banning public higher education institutions from funding or supporting diversity programs.

Some have noted that the university’s decision went even further than what the law required. According to former ERG leaders, these groups provided a vital sense of community and a unified voice for underrepresented employees. And losing them feels like losing more than just a meeting space—it’s a loss of institutional connection and collective power.

That said, this outcome is still extremely rare.

There are thousands of ERG programs across the country. And even with the legal pressure we’ve been talking about, the complete shutdown of an ERG program is not the norm. You might be playing a high-pressure game, but it’s not necessarily a losing one.

What This Means for Your ERG Program

Here’s what all of this tells us:

It’s not just about what your ERGs do. It’s about what your company says they do, how you document it, and whether your structure holds up when someone (regulator or activist group) starts reading the fine print.

From Cracker Barrel to the Dodgers, we saw how language like “developing Black leaders” or “empowering Asian employees” became legal targets, even when the intent was community and inclusion.

From T-Mobile and Verizon, we saw how companies defended their programs successfully by clearly stating that ERGs are open to all, have centralized oversight, and carry no career impact.

From Apple, we saw that it’s possible to have ERGs without putting a target on your back if your language is neutral and your structure is clean.

And from the University of Louisville, we saw the worst-case scenario—a full program shutdown—though even that remains extremely rare.

So what does that mean for you?

It means that messy ERG language is now a liability, not just a branding issue.

It means that governance is your shield, not the name you put on the group.

Here’s what to consider doing:

• Audit your ERG statements: If your mission includes phrases like “for X group” or “developing X leaders,” revisit it.

• Clarify access: Spell out that ERGs are open to all employees.

• Rethink BRG as a safety net: Rebranding as a Business Resource Group does not automatically make your program more compliant. It might actually raise concerns if illegal practices are happening.

• Clean up internal documentation: Think charters, handbooks, and promotional materials. If you say it anywhere, assume it could be pulled into review.

Lead like your program depends on it...because it does.

Maceo