The complaint, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), argues that the event violated federal law by limiting participation based on sex. The case highlights growing legal scrutiny of corporate diversity initiatives and marks another test of how far employers can go in designing targeted networking programs.

Filed in federal court in New Hampshire, the lawsuit centers on a two-day September 2024 event hosted by Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast at the Mohegan Sun resort in Connecticut. According to the EEOC, about 250 female employees attended the event, which was described by the company as its first in-person Women’s Forum.

The agency alleges the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by excluding male employees from the event and its associated benefits.

Allegations Under Federal Civil Rights Law

In its complaint, the EEOC said it filed suit on behalf of a male employee who objected to being barred from attending. The agency alleges that the company paid for lodging, meals and other expenses for participants, continued paying their salaries, and excused them from regular work duties during the event.

Under Title VII, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin. The EEOC contends that restricting access to a company-sponsored professional development opportunity based solely on gender constitutes unlawful discrimination.

“Excluding men from an employer-sponsored event is a Title VII violation that the EEOC will act to remedy through litigation when necessary,” acting general counsel Catherine L. Eschbach said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

The agency said it sought to resolve the matter through conciliation but was unable to reach an agreement with the company before filing suit.

Company Response

Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, headquartered in Bedford, New Hampshire, said it was disappointed by the lawsuit and rejected the agency’s characterization of the event.

In a statement to media outlets, the company said it “finds it disappointing that the EEOC did not conduct a full investigation” and added that it looks forward to presenting its case in court. It declined to comment on the specific allegations.

In a LinkedIn post published after the event, the company described the Women’s Forum as a networking reception where speakers addressed topics such as navigating a male-dominated industry and balancing professional and personal responsibilities.

The EEOC is seeking monetary relief on behalf of a class of male employees it says were excluded, citing alleged financial losses as well as emotional harm.

Part of Broader DEI Scrutiny

The case emerges amid heightened national debate over corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The EEOC has recently taken a more assertive posture in examining employer programs that target specific demographic groups.

Earlier this month, the agency disclosed it was investigating sportswear company Nike over claims that certain diversity policies may have disadvantaged white employees.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, appointed during the Trump administration, has publicly criticized some corporate DEI practices, arguing that initiatives designed to assist underrepresented groups must still comply with federal anti-discrimination law. In recent months, the agency has issued guidance cautioning employers that employee resource groups, training programs and fellowships may raise legal concerns if participation is restricted based on protected characteristics.

Civil rights advocates and some former Democratic EEOC commissioners have expressed concern that the agency’s current approach could undermine long-standing workplace inclusion programs that courts have generally upheld when structured carefully.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Employment law specialists say the case underscores the legal risks associated with demographic-specific professional development programs.

David Glasgow, co-founder of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU School of Law, said targeted programs such as women-only networking retreats have become frequent subjects of legal challenges.

He said organizations may reduce exposure by focusing on program content rather than limiting eligibility to a specific group. “Instead of limiting participation based on cohort, they could open it up to anyone who is committed to the content of the program,” he said.

Glasgow noted that many similar disputes have been resolved after employers broadened access to previously targeted programs. He also questioned whether pursuing litigation over a short-term networking event is the best use of agency resources at a time when broader workplace discrimination issues persist.

The EEOC did not provide additional comment beyond its public statement.

Legal and Business Implications

The outcome of the lawsuit could offer further clarity on how federal courts interpret Title VII in the context of modern workplace diversity programming. While the law bars discrimination against any protected group, including men, courts have historically allowed certain voluntary initiatives aimed at addressing underrepresentation—provided they do not create rigid exclusions or deny tangible employment benefits.

If the court finds that paid attendance, lodging and excused work time constituted material employment advantages, the case may hinge on whether those benefits were unlawfully restricted by gender.

For employers nationwide, the dispute illustrates the delicate balance between fostering inclusive professional networks and ensuring equal access to company-sponsored opportunities. As litigation over DEI programs continues, companies may face increasing pressure to design initiatives that are both inclusive in intent and neutral in structure.

The case is pending in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire.

Source: AP News – US civil rights agency sues Coca-Cola distributor for excluding men from casino work trip

The post EEOC Sues Coca-Cola Bottler Over Women-Only Casino Networking Trip appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

For over a decade, Costco shoppers have been sipping Pepsi alongside their $1.50 hot dogs at the warehouse giant’s food courts. But now, Coca-Cola is set to make its return to Costco’s soda fountains this summer, replacing Pepsi, its longtime competitor.

Costco’s Decision to Switch Back to Coca-Cola

At Costco’s annual shareholders meeting on Thursday, CEO Ron Vachris confirmed that the company would be returning to Coca-Cola products in its food court fountains. He addressed speculation when a shareholder directly asked, “Are we truly switching back to Coke products?”

The switch will see Costco once again offering Coca-Cola sodas alongside its iconic $1.50 hot dog deal. The transition ends Pepsi’s reign in Costco’s food courts, a relationship that began in 2013. Costco has long solicited bids from various companies for its fountain drink business, and Pepsi had won the contract nearly 12 years ago.

Pepsi’s Exit and Coke’s Return

The shift back to Coca-Cola is significant since the soda giant had been a mainstay at Costco for decades before Pepsi took over. A Costco executive remarked in 2013 that the switch was a “big shift” for the company, as Coke was the only vendor at most of Costco’s locations for years.

At the time, the decision to switch was tied to Costco’s desire to “preserve the integrity” of the beloved $1.50 hot dog and soda combo, which has remained the same price since 1985. Despite selling millions of these combos annually—around 150 million last year alone—Costco loses money on each sale. However, the company compensates for these losses by raising prices on other products in its stores, ensuring the overall model remains profitable.

Why the Hot Dog Deal Matters

The hot dog combo is more than just a food item for Costco. It’s a key part of the company’s brand identity. Co-founder Jim Sinegal has famously stated, “We’re known for that hot dog. That’s something you don’t mess with.” The $1.50 deal has become a powerful marketing tool and symbol of Costco’s commitment to value.

In fact, when Costco has considered raising the price of the combo, co-founder Sinegal made his stance clear with the memorable quote: “If you raise the effing hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out,” as recalled by former CEO Craig Jelinek.

Costco’s Commitment to the Iconic Deal

Despite rising inflation and increasing costs, Costco has reassured its customers that the $1.50 hot dog combo is “safe.” The company understands the importance of this low-cost offer and has prioritized keeping it unchanged for its loyal members.

As Costco shifts back to Coca-Cola, the $1.50 hot dog and soda combo will continue to be a fan favorite, staying true to Costco’s promise of value and consistency.

Source

The post Costco Ditches Pepsi, Brings Coca-Cola Back to Food Courts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.