The New York Times Company (the “Times”) found itself at the center of its own breaking news story earlier this month. On May 5, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) filed suit in the Southern District of New York alleging that the Times engaged in “unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and/or sex” by “fail[ing] to promote [an employee] because of his race (White) and/or sex (male).” The lawsuit stems from a charge filed with the EEOC by an unnamed Times employee referred to throughout the Complaint as the “Charging Party.” The Times allegedly sought to hire a Deputy Real Estate Editor in 2024 and 2025. As the title suggests, the job description for this position sought someone with experience reporting on “real estate development, [and] the housing market, as well as décor, design, and architecture.” The EEOC claims that the Charging Party was a white male who had worked for the Times for several years and was purportedly well qualified for the Deputy Real Estate Editor position. He applied and was granted an initial screening interview. But the Charging Party was allegedly dropped from consideration for the role soon thereafter. The Deputy Real Estate Editor position ultimately went to a “multiracial female candidate . . .” that—per the EEOC’s Complaint—lacked experience in real estate journalism.
The EEOC alleged that the Charging Party’s race and/or sex were “factor[s]” that supposedly weighed against him in the Times’ decision-making process. According to the EEOC, this is not an isolated incident. Instead, the EEOC alleges that the Times has undertaken extensive efforts since at least 2017 to increase diversity among its staff. The EEOC described “Diversity and Inclusion” reports that were allegedly published by the Times reflecting trends in its leadership and staff demographics. The EEOC described these reports as “emphasiz[ing]” the Times’ goal of increasing Black, Latino, and female workers. In 2021, the Times supposedly issued “A Call to Action” that similarly advocated for increased diverse hires. The EEOC claimed that “A Call to Action” set a goal of increasing Black and Latino employees in leadership positions by 50% by 2025. The Times also allegedly provided specific instructions on hiring and promoting processes that would reach more diverse results. For example, the EEOC alleged that the Times required “diverse ‘slate[s]’” of candidates and interview panels. It also supposedly added employees to its recruiting teams that would focus on creating “candidate pipelines” consisting of people of color and “underrepresented groups.”
According to the Complaint, the “necessary consequence” of these actions was that white, male employees held fewer leadership positions. The EEOC claims that the Charging Party is one such victim of the Times’ DEI efforts. It is the EEOC’s position that—despite his alleged qualifications—the Charging Party was not promoted to the Deputy Real Estate Editor position because his race and/or sex did not align with the Times’ goal of increasing diversity in leadership. In contrast, the EEOC states that the “multiracial female” who ultimately won the position did fall within the Times’ desired demographics. The EEOC alleged that, in both instances, race and sex were factors that played into the Times’ decision to promote the female employee over the Charging Party.
The EEOC concludes by alleging that these practices deprived the Charging Party of his equal employment opportunities. It is requesting various kinds of relief to remedy these issues. The EEOC asked the Court to enjoin the Times from discriminating against employees on the basis of race or sex, and to also order the Times to implement policies and procedures that will provide equal employment opportunities. The EEOC is seeking individualized relief for the Charging Party, too. Specifically, its Complaint asks the court to award the Charging Party backpay and punitive damages. Interestingly, the EEOC is pursuing equitable relief for the Charging Party through either instatement to a Deputy Editor Position or an award of appropriate front pay.
The Times has denied the allegations, characterizing them as “politically motivated . . . .” This is not the first time that the EEOC has taken it upon itself to file suit against private companies alleging that they discriminated against male employees. And the Times is not likely to be the last company that is caught in the EEOC’s crosshairs for alleged “DEI-Related Discrimination.” Employers should pay attention to the EEOC’s persistent focus in this area. They specifically should evaluate the extent to which hiring and/or promotion decisions are made using diversity, equity, or inclusion factors—such as through implementing race-, ethnicity-, or sex-based quotas or targets. For assistance or more information about the EEOC’s anti-DEI initiatives, please contact your Bricker Graydon Wyatt employment counsel.
