The Case of Old Country Store Equal Employment (EO) is giving the same employment opportunity to everyone without bias or discrimination because of race, religion, color or gender. Because of the importance of managing the practice of the federal government has established a Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This agency along with some others are responsible for ensuring organization abide by the law. What happens with the gray areas that organizations can finagle its way. In the case study of Cracker Barrel the gray area was found in the hiring of homosexuals. The homosexuals did not have a law that protect them from such discrimination, but that does not make it right.
Problem/ Issue IdentificationThe central facts in this case are; Cracker Barrel felt justified in firing and not hiring homosexual in their restaurants, the company informed them that this is the reason they were not receiving employment, and the company has had accusations of discriminating against blacks. This case study address the major issues cover in chapter eighteen and that is Employment discrimination and Affirmative Action. Some sub issues are the fact the homosexuals can not press charges or receive monetary compensation for their loss. Analysis/EvaluationThe primary stakeholders in this case is the employees and managers who are being fired and having to firing good employees because of the change in the companies policy. The customers who are receiving poor service because of the conduct and environment of the restaurant. The local communities because of the protest and legal actions the organization is faced with. The stakeholders and investors because the stocks may drop and otherwise profit have to be invested to fix the company created problem. Civic institutions, media and academic commentators, Government and regulators and social pressure groups are all effect because they are all drawn to resolve the issue. Cracker Barrel has a legal responsible to all its stakeholders and they were not up holding the responsibilities when their employees and customers received discrimination in their restaurant. They also have a ethical responsibility to do what is right . Cracker Barrel was not fair and just with their homosexual employees or their black customers. Their philanthropic responsibility was not in the best standing best in the eyes of some of the community they were an unethical organization.
Recommendations/ ConclusionThey company did not evaluate all of their employees with the same standard and excluded a group of employees because of their sexual preference. The company should have placed a policy that prohibited all employees from expressing their sexual preference will during duty and around the restaurant. Also the company could have addressed the discrimination against blacks when it was brought to their attention and apologize for the perception that was given. Then implement a policy the would reprimand those that discriminate against any customer or employ. I do not believe Cracker Barrel should have acted in the manner they did, but I trust that this experience was a learning experience.
