Last Updated on July 28, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, a beloved Southern restaurant chain known for its nostalgic decor and hearty comfort food, has found itself at the center of a cultural storm in 2025. The Tennessee-based chain, with over 660 locations across 44 states, has long been a staple for families seeking a taste of Americana. However, its recent efforts to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have ignited passionate debates among its customer base and beyond. While some applaud the company’s steps toward inclusivity, others argue it risks alienating its core demographic. This article explores Cracker Barrel’s latest controversy, the broader context of corporate DEI efforts, and what it means for the chain’s future.
A History of Hospitality with Hurdles
Founded in 1969 by Dan Evins in Lebanon, Tennessee, Cracker Barrel has built its brand on Southern hospitality, offering a menu of classic dishes like fried chicken, meatloaf, and biscuits alongside a gift shop filled with nostalgic trinkets. With annual revenues exceeding $3.4 billion in 2024, the chain has thrived by catering to a largely conservative, family-oriented clientele, particularly in rural and suburban areas. However, its history has not been without blemishes. In the early 1990s, Cracker Barrel faced significant criticism for a policy that prohibited hiring LGBTQ+ employees, a stance it reversed in 2002 after public outcry and internal reforms. By 2022, the company had improved its score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index to 80, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity.
Despite these strides, Cracker Barrel’s recent DEI initiatives have stirred controversy. In June 2021, the company launched its Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, aiming to foster a welcoming environment for all employees and guests. This included partnerships with organizations like the NAACP and Urban League, as well as efforts to diversify its workforce and leadership. The strategy was a response to past criticisms, including a 2004 lawsuit settled for $8.7 million over allegations of racial discrimination against Black customers. Yet, these efforts have not been universally embraced, and the chain’s latest moves have reignited tensions.
The 2025 DEI Controversy
In July 2025, Cracker Barrel faced renewed scrutiny when America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal group, filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Tennessee Attorney General. The complaints allege that Cracker Barrel’s DEI policies violate federal and state civil rights laws by prioritizing certain identity groups in hiring and promotions. Specifically, AFL criticized the company’s Business Resource Groups, which offer benefits to specific demographic groups, and its Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s consideration of diversity metrics when selecting board members.
The backlash gained traction on social media platforms like X, where posts from users like @BIZPACReview and @NRNonline amplified the narrative that Cracker Barrel’s DEI practices were discriminatory. One post, garnering over 10,000 engagements, claimed, “Beloved eatery Cracker Barrel hit with complaints over discriminatory DEI practices,” reflecting a sentiment that the chain was straying from its traditional values. This echoed earlier controversies, such as the 2022 uproar over the introduction of Impossible Foods’ plant-based sausage, which some customers labeled as “woke,” and the 2023 backlash against a rainbow-colored rocking chair celebrating Pride Month.
A Broader Corporate Trend
Cracker Barrel’s challenges are not unique. In 2025, several major corporations, including McDonald’s, Amazon, and BlackRock, have scaled back or rebranded their DEI programs in response to similar criticisms. McDonald’s, for instance, renamed its diversity team the “Global Inclusion Team” in January 2025, while Amazon removed references to DEI in its annual report. This shift reflects a growing skepticism among some consumers and advocacy groups about corporate social initiatives, often framed as prioritizing ideology over merit.
Data from a 2025 Pew Research Center survey highlights the polarized views on DEI: 52% of Americans believe such programs promote fairness, while 34% view them as discriminatory. In conservative-leaning states, where Cracker Barrel operates many of its locations, opposition to DEI is particularly strong, with 62% of respondents in a 2024 Gallup poll expressing discomfort with corporate diversity mandates. This sentiment poses a challenge for brands like Cracker Barrel, whose customer base includes a significant conservative demographic.
Cracker Barrel’s Response and Strategy
Cracker Barrel has stood firm in its commitment to inclusivity. In a statement on its website, the company emphasized, “Discrimination, overt or through unconscious bias, has no place at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. We have a responsibility to live up to our mission of Pleasing People each day, ensuring that every member of our team and every guest feels at home.” The chain has also highlighted its economic contributions, employing over 70,000 workers and serving approximately 230 million guests annually, as evidence of its broad appeal.
To navigate the controversy, Cracker Barrel has increased community engagement efforts. In 2024, it launched the “Cracker Barrel Cares” initiative, donating $1.2 million to local charities and hosting inclusivity training for employees. The company also introduced menu items like gluten-free options and expanded its plant-based offerings, aiming to attract a more diverse clientele. These moves align with industry trends: a 2025 Restaurant Business report noted that 68% of restaurant chains are diversifying menus to appeal to younger, health-conscious diners.
Customer and Community Reactions
The response to Cracker Barrel’s DEI efforts is a tale of two audiences. On one hand, supporters praise the chain for evolving with the times. A 2025 survey by YouGov found that 45% of Gen Z and Millennial diners prioritize brands with inclusive policies, and social media comments on platforms like Instagram reflect this: “Thank you, Cracker Barrel, for making everyone feel welcome!” one user wrote. On the other hand, detractors, particularly on X, argue that the chain is alienating its core customers. “Cracker Barrel used to be about family and tradition, not politics,” one user posted, echoing a sentiment shared by thousands.
The controversy has also sparked memes and viral content, reminiscent of the 2023 “Cracker Barrel Has Fallen” memes that circulated after the Pride Month post. These reactions highlight the cultural divide, with some mocking the outrage—“Do people really boycott biscuits over a rainbow chair?”—while others double down on calls for boycotts.
Economic Implications
Cracker Barrel’s stock price, trading at approximately $45 per share in July 2025, reflects a 45% decline from its pre-pandemic high, a trend exacerbated by the 2020 economic downturn. While the company’s revenue has rebounded to $3.4 billion, same-store sales growth slowed to 2.1% in Q2 2025, according to its latest earnings report. Analysts suggest that boycotts, while often short-lived, could impact foot traffic in key markets. A 2023 study by the University of Chicago found that boycotts reduce sales by an average of 4% for targeted brands, though Cracker Barrel’s diversified revenue streams, including its retail segment, may cushion the blow.
Looking Ahead
As Cracker Barrel navigates this latest controversy, its leadership faces a delicate balancing act: honoring its traditional roots while appealing to a changing demographic. The restaurant industry is evolving, with 73% of consumers in a 2025 National Restaurant Association survey demanding more inclusive dining experiences. Yet, Cracker Barrel’s rural strongholds remain conservative, and alienating this base could prove costly.
The chain’s next steps may include doubling down on community outreach or refining its DEI messaging to emphasize unity over division. For now, Cracker Barrel remains a microcosm of America’s broader cultural debates, where a plate of fried chicken and a rainbow rocker can spark a national conversation.
Conclusion
Cracker Barrel’s push for inclusivity reflects a broader corporate shift toward social responsibility, but it has not come without cost. As the chain grapples with accusations of “going woke,” it must navigate a polarized landscape where every decision is scrutinized. Whether this marks a new era of growth or a misstep that alienates its base remains to be seen. For now, Cracker Barrel’s table is set for all—but not without a side of controversy.
