By Lily Kerr
BLOG OVERVIEW:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has entered into a consent decree with Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc. regarding discriminatory practices towards males. Notably, this case spanned both the Biden and Trump administrations, indicating the continued importance of tracking and conducting analytics on demographic information.
On August 18, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a joint motion to enter a consent decree in its case against Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc. (hereafter referred to collectively as “Battleground”). The consent decree, which will be in place for the next three years, marks the end of an almost year-long case between the two parties.
Case Background
In September of 2024, EEOC sued Battleground under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming the sports bar company had refused to hire men into non-managerial, front-of-house roles in 19 different Kickback Jack’s franchise locations across North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. The sex-based hiring discrimination had allegedly occurred at the Battleground-owned chain since 2019.
As part of the agreement, Battleground has agreed to pay roughly $1.1 million to go toward a class settlement fund within 30 days of the decree. Over the next six months, the fund administrator will work to compile a list of claimants via a social media campaign. Additionally, Battleground has been ordered to amend Kickback Jack’s employment policies to ensure that discrimination under any class protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)—including sex—will no longer occur.
Another notable element of the decree mandates that any individual expressing interest in the non-managerial roles involved in the case will be invited to an interview. Assuming the candidate shows for the interview, they will then complete an employment application. The application is to be accompanied by a separate form including a voluntary self-identification for sex information.
As a measure of accountability, Battleground will provide EEOC with semi-annual reports for the duration of the decree. The reports are to include data on hiring and terminations as well as job postings and training. In addition, the company will publicize its representation of both male and female front-of-house non-managerial employees on its website.
These reporting requirements stem from an allegation in the original complaint, which claimed Battleground was remiss in their Title VII and EEOC record keeping obligations regarding applicant data.
Implications for Employers
Although the Battleground case originated in the waning days of the Biden administration, the outcome signals the current EEOC’s continued commitment to enforcing Title VII in suits against employers. Despite Executive Order 11246’s rescission during the early days of the current Trump administration, it is as important as ever for private employers, regardless of federal contractor status, to maintain proper applicant and employment data. Title VII itself states that employers must “make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed.” In addition to being required under Title VII, robust record keeping equips employers to defend themselves in suits brought by EEOC or private plaintiffs.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that the central claim in the Battleground case involves discrimination against males. This finding underscores the importance of employers regularly conducting proactive analytics on personnel activity data by race/ethnicity and sex, which is a recommended practice in complying with Title VII. These analytics should be broken out by all race/ethnicity and sex subgroups, to determine potential negative impact against ANY specific groups. This case serves as a reminder that discrimination findings can involve white and male, as well as Asian, Black, Hispanic, female, and other employees and job seekers.
Traditionally, employers have conducted such analytics under the adverse impact theory of discrimination, which occurs when “a seemingly neutral selection process has a disproportionately negative effect on members of a protected class that are not job related and consistent with a business necessity.” In recent weeks, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo introducing the concept of “unlawful proxy discrimination,” which appears on its face to be essentially synonymous with the adverse impact theory.
Regardless of terminology, the Battleground case reinforces the importance of maintaining employment records and conducting proactive analytics on personnel data. The consequences of failing to do so can include steep fines and extensive reporting requirements. There can also be reputational costs for organizations that extend well beyond monetary settlements and reporting/monitoring periods.
DCI will continue to provide updates on any further guidance released by the administration regarding unlawful proxy discrimination.
