The EEOC is suing The New York Times over “reverse discrimination” allegations put forth by a White male employee. On Tuesday, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the NYT for failing to promote a worker due to his race and sex, thereby violating his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These allegations mention the news agency’s commitment to enacting race and sex-conscious decision-making in the workforce through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and suggest that it has always had a predisposition towards increasing non-white and female representation in its leadership positions.
The NYT has denied the accusations of employment bias in response to the lawsuit, but the case marks another example of how changing regulations are reshaping the nature of discrimination allegations today.
The EEOC’s lawsuit against the New York Times stems from allegations of promoting an underqualified candidate to meet diversity preferences. (Image: Freepik)
The EEOC Files a Lawsuit Against the New York Times for Reported Title VII Violations
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the New York Times was hiring for a vacant Deputy Real Estate Editor position in early 2025. One of the candidates, a long-time employee and a New York Times editor with extensive experience in real estate journalism, also applied for the role. The candidate, despite being highly qualified, was reportedly left out of the final panel interview round. The EEOC alleges that every candidate who made it to the final round was not a white male.
The candidate who was ultimately hired was a non-white female with “little to no experience in real estate journalism.” Not only was she accused of lacking the necessary experience for the role, but the EEOC lawsuit also states that the New York Times’ hiring manager accepted the candidate into the final interview panel without putting her through the standard preliminary procedures. She was also reportedly hired even after she was less favorably rated compared to the other final candidates.
The EEOC’s race discrimination lawsuit accuses the NYT of actively choosing not to promote a well-qualified white male employee because of his race and/or sex, and instead picking an external female employee candidate who did not possess the required qualifications for her role. This case is another reminder that the pursuit of any DEI goals and practices can result in serious litigation.
DEI Practices Can Be Interpreted as a Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an employment law that prohibits discrimination against workers based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The federal law ensures equal access to opportunity for all qualified citizens and prevents employers from treating employees differently based on any of these protected characteristics. “No one is above the law — including ‘elite’ institutions,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement.
“There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles. The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head. No matter the size or power of the employer, the EEOC under my leadership will not pull punches in ensuring evenhanded, colorblind enforcement of Title VII to protect America’s workers, including white males,” Lucas added, making the EEOC’s stance on DEI discrimination alleged in the lawsuit clear.
Acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine L. Eschbach added, “Employers who engage in unlawful discrimination in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion or other similar motivations should understand that they face significant litigation risk.”
The New York Times Released a Statement Regarding the Lawsuit
The NYT was among the first to break the news on the EEOC’s gender and race discrimination lawsuit against its operations. Reporters and spokespersons for The Times told The New York Magazine that they were surprised by such allegations. They also added that the claims were unfounded and there was sufficient evidence of white male candidates working at the top levels of the organization.
While this does not always suggest the absence of bias or unlawful discrimination, Danielle Rhoades Ha, Senior Vice President of Communications, also defended against the claims. “Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world. We will defend ourselves vigorously,” she asserted.
Accusing the EEOC of deviating from standard practice in highly unusual ways to bring forth this case, she added, “The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative. Neither race nor gender played a role in this decision – we hired the most qualified candidate, and she is an excellent editor.” The senior VP also reiterated The New York Times’s commitment to diversity in all its forms.
The Tug-of-War Over DEI Continues
Diversity, equity, and inclusion practices were once seen as the leading quality of a good business and employer, but things are quite different in 2026. Following multiple executive orders from the administration, DEI practices are no longer allowed within workplaces and are seen as discriminatory rather than inclusive. Organizations that showcase such policies and preferences risk inviting legal repercussions towards their operation, making it a delicate consideration to navigate.
Many businesses have now dropped all DEI reporting, and federal agencies and associated contractors are under close watch to ensure that diversity policies are not set in place. In light of such changes, employers are now promoting belongingness and inclusion to build a sense of community with workers, but such practices require close attention to ensure they do not evoke allegations of discrimination.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
