Normal view

Received yesterday — 7 August 2025

The gift of a good night’s sleep: The CEO who donates duvets and luxury sheets to families who need rest most

7 August 2025 at 14:31

Nearly three years ago, Niki Mock, founder of the nonprofit FurnishHopeDC, posted a message on Nextdoor, explaining that she was looking for a gently used bunk bed for a low-income family in Washington, D.C. Not having enough beds meant the family was sleeping on the floor. She recalls receiving a response: “I’ll buy one.” 

The message had CEO-style brevity because it came from one: Julie Sweet, chief executive of the consulting firm Accenture. Sweet spends her days advising some of the world’s most influential corporate leaders and running a company with more than 770,000 employees. And on many days, she also makes time for FurnishHopeDC, a community organization that gives new and gently used household goods to families in need of them who live in D.C.’s Ward 7 and Ward 8. 

FurnishHopeDC has outfitted more than 900 homes since it launched five years ago; in the past three years, Sweet has been responsible for more than half of the homes the organization has served. She donates at least 10 twin beds, including mattresses and frames, per month to the charity, and has purchased more than 400 bedding bags, which each cost more than $200. Inside these bags are duvets or comforters, covers, sheet sets, pillowcases, pillows, Squishmallows (for kids’ beds), and throws. Sweet also donates new high-end beauty products, toys, and pots and pans, but most of her energy goes into bedding. “The sheets that she gives us, I swear, are higher quality than the sheets I sleep on,” says Mock. 

Accenture CEO Julie Sweet has focused some of her philanthropy on giving bedding to families who need it in the D.C. area.
Photograph by Mackenzie Stroh for Fortune

Sweet’s focus on bedding is not random or merely a reflection of her personal obsession. The CEO, who grew up in a working-class household in California, sees bedding—and a good night’s sleep—as “critical for adults and kids to be able to be successful,” she told Fortune. A lovely, inviting bed, she said, gives people “a place of refuge each day.” 

“Often these families live in cramped quarters, and the only place they can call their own is their bed,” Sweet explained in an email. “Having a good quality bed allows them to sleep better, which is so important for health and being able to have a positive mindset and the strength to do the very hard things they must do.” 

The sleep divide is real

Over the past several years, sleep has become a market worth hundreds of billions globally, populated by high-tech mattresses, data-collecting wearables, sleep apnea devices, and more. One-percenters who are busy optimizing every aspect of their diet and lifestyle with an eye to achieving more or living forever are happy to splurge on big-ticket sleep buys. And where CEOs once bragged about getting by with four hours of REM, they have now taken to the Gen Z trend of “sleep-maxxing.” 

However, research has shown that not getting enough sleep is a larger problem for people who earn less and live in low-income neighborhoods, not stressed-out white-collar workers and executives. The reasons for what some call the “great sleep divide” are varied and complex, but studies suggest that the culprits include stress, being unemployed, or working multiple jobs. Living in crowded circumstances, and in districts with high levels of light and noise pollution and fewer green spaces, can also play a role.  

Research has validated a connection between cognitive function and good sleep habits. If you’re extremely sleep deprived, your brain functions about as well as someone who is drunk, which does not bode well for one’s performance at work or school. Having too little sleep can also tank a person’s mood and motivation. Over the long term, good sleep habits are correlated with healthy aging, and poor sleep is now seen as a risk factor for chronic illnesses like heart disease and, for adults in midlife, dementia.

Meanwhile, the high cost of buying multiple beds and bedding can be a barrier to families outfitting a home, especially for those moving out of homelessness, who are among the families Mock’s nonprofit serves. This year, tariffs appear to be driving the costs of bedding even higher, since the vast majority of bed linens are manufactured overseas.

Better than money

Sweet shops online for bedding to donate and keeps an eye out for sales, Mock explains. “When she sees one, she calls and says, ‘How many of these would you like?’” When President Trump revealed his tariff plans, Sweet got in touch, wondering what she should buy before tariffs pushed prices higher. 

The CEO is the only donor who always gives the organization brand-new sheets, and the only one selecting prints featuring unicorns, cars, and rocket ships for children, and lush colors for adults. “I can tell she really enjoys that part, picking out the different designs and then imagining what child is getting what,” Mock says. “I have no idea when she has time to do this, because each bag is different.”

The nonprofit fields messages from Sweet at all hours of the day, even when it’s 2 or 3 a.m. in the time zone where Sweet is traveling. 

Mock says she and her partner Adriane Herbert sometimes have to explain to people how to use a duvet and duvet cover, because they haven’t had one before, and she has had to persuade Sweet to stop including dust ruffles, which can allow bedbugs, mice, and cockroaches to travel too easily. 

Every time Mock is there to see a new bed put together, she snaps a photo and sends it to Sweet to show the real person on the receiving end. 

“This is so much better than getting money,” says Mock. “She’s putting her time, effort, and obviously, money into it, but it’s really her heart and soul.” 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Courtesy of FurnishHopeDC

FurnishHopeDC gives families kitchen kits, dressers, tables, and bedding.
Received before yesterday

A long-running anti-DEI lawsuit could help companies defend themselves from reverse-racism claims

5 August 2025 at 09:30

When Elizabeth Gore received an email two years ago informing her that America First Legal (AFL) was bringing a class-action lawsuit against her company, Hello Alice, she thought it was spam. 

AFL is a conservative activist group that was cofounded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest allies and a deputy chief of staff in Trump’s second term. According to its website, AFL exists to “oppose lawless government overreach and fight to restore the rule of law in the United States.”

Gore couldn’t fathom why Miller’s organization would take an interest in her company, a business-to-business platform that serves mom-and-pop companies, offering them, for example, a data-backed assessment of their financial fitness, and potential access to a Hello Alice credit card and other forms of capital. She sees Hello Alice as part of a patchwork of companies, government agencies, and nonprofits safeguarding one of the main paths to the American Dream itself.  

But the message wasn’t spam. America First Legal alleged that when Hello Alice made a $25,000 grant available to Black-owned commercial vehicle businesses, it violated a Civil Rights Act law from 1866 that bans racial discrimination in contracts. 

The AFL email kicked off a long, emotionally draining legal battle that has consumed Gore and her cofounder Elizabeth Rodz ever since, Gore explains, even as Hello Alice has continued to grow. Though the battle is playing out far from the national spotlight, it’s providing a testing ground for legal arguments that might help companies defend their diversity-oriented programs against claims of reverse racism.  

A $25,000, a two-year battle

The program in question was sponsored by Progressive, the insurance company, a co-defendant in the suit, along with Circular Board, Hello Alice’s parent. The legal challenge was brought on behalf of Nathan Roberts, a white man in Ohio who owns a company called Freedom Truck Dispatch.  

Last year, the tussle briefly appeared to be over: A federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio agreed to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs failed to show that Roberts would have won the grant if the competition for it had been race-neutral. In legal terms, he didn’t have “standing” to bring the case, a finding related to a couple of specifics about the situation. (For one, Roberts didn’t apply for the grant during the application window and sued the company only after the window closed.) 

But America First Legal appealed that decision, and in late July the lawsuit came before the Sixth Circuit appellate court in Cincinnati, where the AFL again argued their client suffered an injury because he wasn’t able to apply for the grant. 

Now, based on the discussion before a three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit, it appears that the Hello Alice lawsuit will solidify a reliable, if unsexy tool that companies can use to defend against claims of reverse racism in anti-DEI campaigns: arcane rules and technicalities. 

For years, corporations have used procedural grounds to evade charges of discrimination in employment-related lawsuits brought by people of color, women, LGBTQ+ employees, and others. The Hello Alice case may show that companies can successfully protect themselves against politically motivated anti-DEI lawsuits the same way. 

“We were really gratified by the court’s questions,” Neal Katyal, a prominent attorney who leads the Supreme Court and appellate practice at the Washington, D.C. law firm Milbank, and is representing Hello Alice, told Fortune. Indeed, many of those questions definitively zeroed in on procedural issues. (The court asked, for example, what about Hello Alice’s terms and conditions prevented the AFL’s client from applying for the grant.) “They obviously had read everything and asked exactly the right questions. And we very much look forward to the Court’s resolution of this case.”

Issues like these could help defendants scuttle cases before the two sides even approach larger questions, including: Was the federal contract law in question ever meant to help address reverse discrimination? (For the record, Hello Alice argues it was not.) And is giving money away as a grant a form of free speech, similar to making political donations? (The 11th Circuit Court has rejected that argument in a separate case, but the matter hasn’t reached the Supreme Court.)  

The outcome of the Hello Alice case may also signal to businesses that they don’t need to preemptively roll back programs for marginalized groups out of fear. 

AFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fortune attempted to reach Freedom Truck Dispatch but found a phone number listed for the company was out of service.

A push for inclusion

Since Hello Alice got off the ground a decade ago, Gore says, the company has served 1.6 million small businesses, helping them secure loans and benefit from a wealth of information and resources. “We have all the financial planning software they need to build their business plans,” Gore explains. 

The cofounders also spend part of their time advocating for small business owners and raising funds for philanthropic grants. To date, Hello Alice has issued $60 million in small grants across the U.S., according to Gore. “Part of our commitment since day one was to ensure that small businesses who have some kind of barrier to entry, that we dig in and ensure they’re part of the platform,” she says. The company has helped veterans, for example, and women who’ve been in the care economy, both groups of people who may not have the credit histories needed to launch a company.

The company is facing off against a movement that has lately gained momentum. Conservative activists who assert that corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are a form of reverse discrimination have been emboldened by support from the judiciary system and the White House. In 2023, the Supreme Court decision in the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) case banned colleges from considering race as part of their admissions process, a shift that sent companies scrambling to figure out what the new law meant in the private sector. Separately, President Trump issued executive orders this year that banned certain types of DEI at companies with federal contracts and warned that his administration would investigate private sector firms discovered to be the most “egregious” offenders of DEI.

Whether the Hello Alice case will answer larger questions about DEI’s legality remains to be seen. “Initially, this case presented the big question: Can affirmative action be permissible in the corporate setting?” Katyal explained. “But the trial court said that the plaintiffs didn’t even get to ask that question. They weren’t allowed to because they didn’t meet the legal requirements to be able to bring a case in federal court.” Now, says Katyal, the question before the Sixth Circuit is, “‘Can someone try and complain about a program to give grants to minority-owned businesses when they can’t even allege they would have gotten the grants anyway?’” 

Elizabeth Gore & Neal Katyal
Gore and attorney Neal Katyal outside the courthouse in Cincinnati where a panel from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Hello Alice’s case in July.
Courtesy of Hello Alice

As the legal battle has played out for Hello Alice, Gore has found support from friends and clients across the political spectrum. “We’re based in Houston, Texas, and [there’s a large] amount of folks who you would think would be against us, and they weren’t,” she said, adding, “Think traditional white male biker companies and trucking companies.” 

Gore says the business owners who have discussed the issue with her—whether they identify as Republican or Democrat—don’t think the government should be telling businesses how to deploy their money. That’s what her legal team believes, too: Private businesses should have the freedom to run or reject affirmative action programs like the grants for Black businesses. Whether such DEI initiatives are good for a company, morally justified, or, as the AFL claims, racist, should be debated in a boardroom and not in a federal court. And there is nothing inherently illegal about a private company offering a grant dedicated to a minority population. 

Playing offense

Lately, many companies have rolled back cohort-specific DEI programs just to avoid the kinds of costly headaches that Hello Alice has faced. Kenji Yoshino, a constitutional law professor at NYU School of Law and director of its Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, believes that’s the right approach for our times. 

Yoshino explains that his center has been “beating the drum on moving from cohorts to content.” That is, he suggests companies make programs such as diversity-focused fellowships in the workplace available to anyone who wants to apply, without changing the ultimate mission of the fellowship. “That really allows a company to do an end run around the SFFA decision,” he says.  

At the same time, he applauds Gore for sticking with her program for Black business owners and preparing to advance not only the technical argument in the lawsuit—showing that the white male trucker doesn’t have the ground to sue—but perhaps much more. Beyond questions about the original intention behind Section 1981, or whether these grants constitute a contract, there’s that more complicated question about First Amendment rights that has yet to reach the country’s highest court. 

If Gore or another business owner can get the law to say that they are merely expressing their views with DEI grant programs, says Yoshino, “that would be the biggest win of all.”

Finding levity

Sticking with this lawsuit has not been an easy decision. When it first hit, Hello Alice was in the middle of a Series C raise, and Silicon Valley Bank, its second-biggest investor, had just collapsed. Hello Alice also had to disclose the lawsuit to other investors, “and there was this fear factor around AFL,” says Gore. “So that capital flew out the door.” But there was a lot at stake, she adds. If the AFL were to prove that grants for minority-owned businesses violated Section 1981, millions of dollars for American small businesses could be lost. So far, the cost of fighting the lawsuit has surpassed $1 million.

The night before the Sixth Circuit oral arguments, she had dinner at a restaurant near the courthouse in Cincinnati. It turned out that the restaurant, Frankie’s, was a Hello Alice customer. For Gore, it was a reminder of the importance of her work. In heavy times, she says, “it gave me levity.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg—Getty Images

Elizabeth Gore, cofounder of Hello Alice
❌