The EEOC Sued the New York Times for Sex Discrimination, And No, That’s Not a Typo

By now, many of you may have seen that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued The New York Times for alleged discrimination against a white man. This is the type of headline you read twice, and I did.

 On May 5, 2026, the Commission filed suit in the Southern District of New York alleging that the Times violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) by denying a white male editor a promotion in 2025 because of his race and sex.

 The Complaint Lays Out The EEOC’s View of Events

Let me walk you through the complaint. The white male editor worked at the Times since 2014 and had more than eleven years’ experience, including editing real estate stories, plus senior roles at various other media outlets. In January 2025, the NYT reposted a Deputy Real Estate Editor opening requiring “experience with stories about real estate development, the housing market, as well as décor, design and architecture” as a basic qualification. The editor applied, met all requirements, was screened by the hiring manager, was promised a written exercise that never came, and was cut before the final panel.

The four finalists for the position included no white males. They included a White female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multiracial female. The hiring manager selected the multiracial female even though she allegedly did not have real estate journalism experience and one interviewer ranked her tied for last, calling her “a bit green overall.”

And, apparently and allegedly, the hiring manager emailed herself “[selected candidate] – yes” the day before the recruiter even screened her.

The EEOC Details A DEI Paper Trail

This is where it gets interesting. The EEOC listed a laundry list of conduct in the realm of DEI that it claims led to such discrimination. These include:

• the NYT’s 2021 “A Call to Action” set a goal of increasing Black and Latino leaders by 50% by 2025;

• requiring “diverse” candidate slates, and

• tying DEI expectations to leaders’ compensation.

And it worked. The EEOC alleged that the NYT met that goal in 2022 (three years early!) but “there was no directive given to employees to cease the affirmative actions outlined in the Call to Action.”

In addition, the EEOC alleged that internal Slack messages from senior editors described demographic trends as “alarming” and discussed “targeted efforts” to address the numbers.

 Both the hiring manager and recruiter had DEI activities in their performance reviews, and the EEOC alleges both understood they were expected to advance race- and sex-based goals.

Does it sound like the NYT’s history of DEI activities formed the basis for this lawsuit?  

DEI does not violate Title VII, so…it’s confusing.

Does the EEOC have a case?

The EEOC built its complaint on a single promotion decision — a fairly slender reed for a case of this profile.

Title VII does not prohibit diversity programs. It prohibits discrimination.

Title VIIprohibits discrimination “because of sex.” It is the main anti-discrimination law in the U.S.

One of the candidates was a man. One was white.

Employer Takeaways

Alright, here’s what employers and their supervisors, managers, and HR folks should consider:

1. Your DEI documentation and internal channels can become Exhibit A. Review diversity reports and demographic dashboards with counsel. Ensure these are written with the assumption a jury will read it someday – because they might.

And, please, pretty please, watch those internal Slack channels! They keep me up at night.

2. Aspirational goals are fine; race- or sex-based hiring decisions are not. There is nothing wrong with wanting a diverse workforce, broadening recruitment pipelines, and removing barriers to entry. An employer simply cannot use race or sex as a factor in an individual employment decision. There is no longer a heightened threshold for these types of claims.

3. Follow your own hiring protocols consistently. I cannot stress this enough. Promotion criteria should be objective and followed. Deviating from your standard process for one candidate can create exposure.

4. New York employers face heightened exposure. If you operate in New York, remember that the New York state and city anti-discrimination laws provide broader protections, longer statutes of limitations, and uncapped damages. A claim that might face hurdles under Title VII could gain traction under state or city law.

The EEOC’s stated mission is important: to prevent and remedy employment discrimination. Discovery, if it gets to that, will show if this editor was really not selected because of his race or sex.