On May 5, 2026, the EEOC filed suit against the New York Times (NYT) in the Southern District of New York for engaging in DEI-related discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that the NYT violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it passed over a white male employee for a promotion to deputy real estate editor, a leadership position. The EEOC’s lawsuit states that the employee was denied the promotion because of his race and/or sex.
The lawsuit points out that in 2021 the NYT published its “Call to Action,” which was a plan to build a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive NYT, and set forth the goal to increase the number of Black and Latino employees in leadership by 50% by 2025. In addition, the Call to Action noted that women of color remained underrepresented in its leadership and ensured that DEI expectations were included in all leaders’ assessments and compensation. The EEOC claims that, in accordance with these goals and because the NYT held its leadership accountable in their performance assessments for making employment decisions to achieve these goals, the NYT passed over the white male employee with extensive experience in journalism. The charging party did not even make it to the final interview stage. Instead, the NYT only interviewed a white female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multiracial female in the final stage. The multiracial female candidate was selected for the role even though, according to the EEOC, she was an outside candidate with little to no experience in real estate journalism and was lower rated than two of the other final candidates.
Since filing the lawsuit, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a public statement that “[t]here is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful….” Acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine L. Eschbach stated that “[e]mployers 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 EEOC has made it clear that it is not going to “pull punches” in this initiative no matter the size or power of the employer.
This case against the NYT is a clear example of the EEOC’s increasingly serious position on discrimination claims brought by employees who are members of majority groups. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services rejected a heightened evidentiary standard that some courts in the past applied to discrimination claims brought by majority-group plaintiffs. This case, the Ames decision, and the EEOC’s What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work issued in 2025 are all strongly signaling to employers not to ignore discrimination against majority groups, stating that there is no such thing as “reverse” discrimination.
Takeaways
- Continue to review your employment practices and policies to ensure they comply with Title VII’s uniform standard.
- Ensure that employment decisions are fair and defensible in each case, not just for employees in underrepresented groups.
- The EEOC is interested in discrimination claims brought by majority-group employees, so expect to see additional focus here.
- An employer’s written DEI policies, metrics, or goals related to DEI initiatives can and will be used as evidence to advance these challenges on behalf of majority-group plaintiffs.
