Today, on behalf of a set of concerned McDonald's shareholders, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract the host of illegal, discriminatory policies it has adopted in the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Those policies facially violate the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964. Several states have also adopted their own Civil Rights laws, which McDonald's disclosed policies systematically violate.
UPDATE: Coca-Cola’s Widely Disseminated Outside Counsel “Guidelines” “Have Not Been and Are Not Policy of the Company”
After months of pressure from concerned stockholders, Coca-Cola’s General Counsel [...]
ACR Project Complaint Concerning Title VI Violations by Northwestern University and Evanston, Illinois
Today, the ACR Project filed with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Civil Rights and Diversity a complaint concerning a wide array of intentional violations of Title VI by the City of Evanston, Illinois and Northwestern University.
ACR Project 9th Circuit Amicus Brief, Supporting Meland’s Request for Injunction Against Enforcement of California’s Legislation Allocating Board Seats by Sex
The ACR Project filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit. The Court of Appeals should reverse because the District Court wrongly accepted as "exceedingly persuasive" the state's embrace of what precedent rightly calls a "pernicious and offensive" notion -- that women always and everywhere need governmental support to compete. It should also reverse because, over the last 7 years, the Supreme Court has quietly replaced the standard the lower court used with a new, stricter test for gauging the Constitutionality of governments' sex-discriminatory policies when acting as sovereigns.
The "law" as it stands today is in serious need of … uh … clarification. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court upheld the race-preferential admissions policies of the University of Michigan Law School in a very peculiar way. In a 5-4 decision, it agreed with the petitioning students that the Law School was discriminating on the basis of race. There was really no denying that. It therefore agreed that strict scrutiny must be applied. But then the Court turned around and deferred to the judgment of the University of Michigan on whether the need for diversity is a "compelling interest." Oh my. Deference? That's the opposite of strict scrutiny.
The ACR Project has demanded that New York State abandon its illegal, unconstitutional policy of rationing access to scarce COVID-19 treatments based on patient race and ethnicity. Under the policy, race and ethnicity dictate allocation of the most effective COVID-19 treatments away from those most at risk. That violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and New York's own Human Rights Law.
Today, the ACR Project submitted a letter to the Denver Public Schools, expressing concern with the "Families of Color Playground Night[s,]" which they system has held over the last several months at at least one of its schools. We warned that this programming appears to violate the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On behalf of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, we filed with the Supreme Court this amicus brief, supporting the petition for certiorari before judgment filed by Students for Fair Admissions. The Court should take up the UNC case along with the Harvard one (whose consideration remains pending). They present a once-a-generation chance to correct previous errors, restore equal protection, and rid America of racial discrimination at both private and public colleges and universities.
The ACR Project and its co-counsel Bell Davis Pitt have demanded that Lowe's officers and directors halt its illegal, discriminatory "Making It ... with Lowe's" promotion and undertake a new, non-discriminatory competition whose application process is open to all entrepreneurs without penalty for the race, sex, or gender of applicants.
Corporations listed on NASDAQ – and their shareholders -- face an apparent conflict between their exchange's approved rules and the state and federal laws governing their actions. What are shareholders and nominating committees to do to thread this needle?