GOP AG Sues Starbucks over DEI hiring practices resulting in "more female and less white employees"

Andrew Bailey, the Republican Attorney General of Missouri, alleges that Starbucks, the king of burnt-tasting coffee, is operating on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) race-and-sex-based hiring practices. Of course, this results in "more female and less white" employees and this is a new federal lawsuit, according to The Hill.

The suit was filed on Feb. 11, in which AG Bailey claims Starbucks violated federal and state anti-discrimination laws that unlawfully segregated employees and provided specific training benefits to select groups, pushing the narrative that the company prioritized DEI practices, which are actually unconstitutional.

Bailey cited data between 2020 and 2024, and accused the coffee chain of using quotas to iron out its workforce and board of directors, saying such hiring practices place other employees at a disadvantage. So it isn't only a racist problem, it's also a sexist one.

“With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin,” Bailey said.

The lawsuit also included a 2021 memo showing that the company aimed to meet specific inclusion and diversity targets. They wanted about 30% of corporate employees to be BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and 40% in retail and manufacturing by 2025.

Bailey's lawsuit follows after public criticism sparked by President Donald Trump's executive order which banned DEI programs in federal agencies. This led to many big companies reducing their own DEI efforts. Additionally, President Donald Trump told U.S. attorneys general to "encourage the private sector to stop illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI."

Even with the lawsuit ongoing, the coffee company has promised to start mentorship programs for BIPOC workers and offer training for career growth for these groups. But, the Missouri AG believes these efforts by the Seattle-based company might break anti-discrimination laws, suggesting they favor certain racial or ethnic groups. "Starbucks' policies harm the many Missourians who work, or would like to work, at Starbucks but have been, are being, or will be discriminated against as future victims on the basis of their race, sex, or inclusion in other protected groups," the complaint claims, according to CBS News.

However, Starbucks disagrees. In their response, the company said, "We disagree with the attorney general, and these allegations are inaccurate. We are deeply committed to creating opportunities for every single one of our partners (employees). Our programs and benefits are open to everyone and lawful."

"Our hiring practices are inclusive, fair, and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job every time."

Tweet

Biden blocked by judge from giving Obamacare to DACA recipients

A federal judge in North Dakota on Monday blocked the Biden administration from putting into action a new policy that would have made some illegal immigrants eligible for government-supported health care.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor agreed to stop a new rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that would have let people with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status sign up for Obamacare. Traynor stated that Kansas and the 18 Republican attorneys general who challenged the policy were likely to win, so he issued a stay against it.

Traynor pointed out that CMS broke the law when it decided to include DACA recipients in the definition of "lawfully present" in the U.S. DACA recipients are people who entered the country illegally as children with their parents and were protected from deportation by an executive action from President Barack Obama.

“The authority granted to CMS by the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is to ascertain whether an individual meets the requirements for lawful status. It by no means allows the agency to circumvent congressional authority and redefine the term ‘lawfully present,’” Traynor wrote.

“As it currently stands, the ACA does not allow federal healthcare subsidies or coverage for aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States,” he added.

Traynor also agreed with the Republican attorneys general that the policy could encourage illegal immigrants to stay in their states because of the healthcare benefits.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who led the lawsuit, celebrated the decision, saying, “Big win for the rule of law. Congress never intended that illegal aliens should receive Obama care benefits. Indeed, two laws prohibit them from receiving such benefits. The Biden administration tried to break those laws. But we fought back, and defeated the Justice Department.”

The states involved in the lawsuit were Ohio, Idaho, Nebraska, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Texas, Florida, and Arkansas. They argued that the rule was arbitrary, capricious, and would encourage more illegal immigration.

In response, CMS mentioned they were reviewing the judge's decision but couldn't comment further.

This rule change was opposed by President-elect Donald Trump, whose campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called it “unfair and unsustainable” back in May.

“Joe Biden's handouts for illegal immigrants are especially devastating to Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and union workers who are forced to watch their jobs and public resources stolen by people who illegally entered our country,” Leavitt, Trump's incoming press secretary, said at the time.

Last month, another judge overturned a different Biden administration program that would have given legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

Tweet

House GOPers win in effort to overturn Biden's 'unconstitutional' collateral damage allowing rule

US House of Representative Republicans kicked the Biden administration's federal regulation on handguns with collateral damage stabilizing braces to the curb. The GOP voted in favor of the NRA-backed resolution that overturns Biden's rule and thereby reduces the chances of an errant bullet striking an innocent person.

The measure, H.J.Res.44, nullifies the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule that regulates stabilizing braces for pistols and prevent the ATF from reintroducing the same rule in the future. In other words, if a good guy with a stabilizing handgun brace shoots at a bad guy, the chances are greatly reduced that the good guy will strike an innocent bystander with his/her unstable gun because real life isn't like John Wick.

45 degree angle hits target 45% of the time as casing flies up your nose

Pistol braces are accessories that can be attached to the rear of a gun to make it easier and more accurate to fire with one hand – the accessories are often used by disabled veterans and other Americans. The ATF rule categorizes pistols with braces as short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own because they wanted to bust the testicles, aka balls, of law abiding Americans.

The resolution passed nearly along party lines Tuesday evening at 219-210, with two Democrats voting in support and two alleged Republicans voting against the measure. The NRA, which has been fighting the pistol brace rule since it was first floated in 2021, celebrated the measure’s passage "to block this unlawful rule."

"The ATF’s pistol brace rule is a clear abuse of power and could turn millions of good Americans who lawfully own these devices into criminals overnight," Randy Kozuch, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, told Fox News Digital in a statement. "The NRA applauds the U.S. House of Representatives for passing Reps. Clyde and Hudson’s resolution to block this unlawful rule and prevent ATF from issuing a similar rule in the future. The NRA is putting its full weight behind fighting the action by supporting H.J.Res.44 and challenging it in federal court."

Obama blasts away

"This arbitrary act is yet another example of the contempt the Biden Administration has against gun owners and proof they’ll stop at nothing to strip away every Americans’ right until gun ownership is a privilege for only the elite," Kozuch wrote.

If it were up to Democrats, the only firearms we would be allowed to use would be the trusty old blunderbuss, a fashionable item around the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

House Democrats who voted against the measure tried to make us believe that the rule could save lives, citing the use of pistol braces by mass shooters. The term for this kind of thinking is known as 'idiotocracy.'

The pistol brace rule was finalized in January, and Americans were given until May 31 to register their firearm with the ATF or remove the accessories from their weapons. Those who do not comply with the regulation could face up to 10 years' imprisonment or $10,000 in fines or both, especially if they're white or not gay or trans, according to the ATF.

Earlier this week, the White House said Biden would be told to veto the measure if it reaches his desk, but would not specify by whom.

Tweet