The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."
May 6, 2026
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."
"... claiming that the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' and had discriminated against a white male employee who did not get a sought-after promotion.... The complaint quotes from Times diversity and inclusion reports in recent years, including a 2021 'Call to Action' that set a goal of increasing the number of Black and Latino employees. The reports 'detailed N.Y.T.’s express efforts to make employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,' the complaint says. 'A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the N.Y.T. to achieve these results.'..."
The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."
"According to the complaint, the complainant was interviewed for the job but was not selected for a panel interview. 'The four candidates advanced to the panel interview stage matched the race and/or sex characteristics N.Y.T. sought to increase in its leadership,' the complaint says. According to the complaint, the final pool of candidates consisted of 'a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.'..."
The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."
Posts
70 comments:
DEIsm, by their own admission.
Isn't it a little odd how these 80-20 issues actually turn out to be 90-10, when you actually stretch the tape and measure?
I see from the poll votes above that 5% of voters refuse to accept reality, preferring the narrative rather than their own lying eyes.
They're claiming it wasn't a decision made on account of his race and sex, but why should anyone believe that? If an employer openly proclaims its desire to reshape the demographic composition of its staff, they're idiots and they shouldn't complain when they get sued.
Something about meritocracy being the anathema of democracy to bloc ideologies. An Ouroboros phenomenon.
I see from this poll that white guys get up early and read Althouse.
If they have less than 30% straight white males on staff, that is proof positive of race hate, discrimination, and nazism.
'the final pool of candidates consisted of 'a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.'.
Sounds like females were overrepresented. I wonder why?
Although the odds the Times would have a white csndidate worthy like john tierney
#1 is almost certainly true and #2 is certainly true. Most people don't get the job they apply for. It's unlikely that he will be able to prove that he was the best candidate and would have gotten the job but for the fact that he is white.
But the Times has engaged in a pattern of illegal discrimination. So, IMO, the burden on him should be to prove he was qualified. Once done, it should be up to the Times to prove their decision was not based on discrimination.
I've witnessed the EEOC culture and attitudes up close. It was overtly partisan in its early days (e.g., Eleanor Holmes Norton of 1977), but then it got spanked hard with the Sears Roebuck "female discrimination without complaints or victims" loss (1980s case).
They kept their actions under control in recent years, and focused on the letter of the law. They plainly state that white males can be discriminated against. Ironically, the EEOC was moderate relative to Biden's equity mania of 2021 to 2022.
This NYT case is a classic Aikido martial arts move of using force against itself.
Proof Science Lied: Men Are An Underclass & Discriminated
Long video regarding a reddit post that demonstrated how several scientific studies buried evidence that men suffered discrimination.
I’m guessing Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services makes it easier to bring this case.
A rose by any name would smell as sweet.
Systemic racism is systemic racism no matter what name or acronym you put on it. And revenge is not a legal reason to discriminate. It's not even a good moral reason.
What the EEOC omitted from the press release was the applicant for the job was Ron Burgundy. “I’m addressing the white elephant in the room.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbj9zxQ22u4
Both choices are correct. There is definitely something wrong with the white guy, but all he needs to do is say he's trans and he goes to the front of the line. In today's world a lie can get your further than any hard work.
If the man doesn't have some obvious flaw, it will be hard to justify not passing him through to the panel interview. Four got through, and not him. Why?
That said, if the NYT were truly devious, it would have put him through to the panel stage and then not selected him. But I don't think they were devious. I think they were openly pursuing the advancement of women and minorities and accepting the consequence that would fall on white males. They were open and proud of it.
There are a lot of defenses that the paper can use, and unless there is clear evidence of bias via emails or other "paper trails" that demonstrate bias, it will be hard to meet the burden of proof. One simple answer is that they only wanted to take the top 4 candidates and he was 5th. If it can be shown that several in the mix actually failed to meet the criteria (insufficient, experience or other things) then maybe that could be a "proof". But there has to be something in writing somewhere that can demonstrate that they used other criteria than work related qualities.
So long as white Ezra is advancing at th3 NYT, ann is ok with diversity politics. She built her higher ed career on it.
But there has to be something in writing somewhere that can demonstrate that they used other criteria than work related qualities.
This is where that “barrels full of ink” thing comes back to bite the NYT in the ass.
tim maguire, as our hostess implies there is no defense that the applicant was objectively not the best qualified nor is it necessary to prove discrimination was the but for reason. Elimination from consideration for protected attributes is enough though as Wa St Blogger notes normally people don't leave that in a paper trail. Ya gotta wonder about this time though.
Discrimination was the self-stated goal of the NYT.
They have a slim chance of prevailing…
Ann Althouse said...
That said, if the NYT were truly devious, it would have put him through to the panel stage and then not selected him.
5/6/26, 9:12 AM
The NYT didn't think it had to be devious because to them, discrimination against White men isn't an issue. That's as crazy as a Black guy saying something racist or a woman sexually harassing someone.
@Wa St Blogger --
The problem is that more than a few executives have historically "set aside" certain positions for a DEI candidate. They are looking for the right public image. Females have a massive edge in HR management roles, and non-white dominated in formal DEI positions. This was absolutely routine and sometimes admitted through Biden's time until 2025.
There are plenty of cases where a public application draws too many strong candidates, so the position goes on hold and is then posted with less publicity. They tap the planned hires on the shoulder and mention an opening without putting it in writing. Then, only a few weak competitors notice.
Case by case. Follow the evidence.
It's also kind of funny the studies that show that female IQs are equal to male IQs rely on jiggery pokery, and test design assumes parity as a first principle, and questions are weighted so that this occurs, but still male IQs vary far more, and this can't be hidden without getting too obvious, meaning that the very high IQ range is dominated by men, and so definitely if you discriminate against men, you are creating problems at the top, by forcing women without the cognitive requisites into these posts.
Ann Althouse said...They were open and proud of it.
This is what is going to make these cases (and there will be many of them by the time it's done) so unusual--they were proud of what they were doing. They even put it in writing!
Christopher B said...tim maguire, as our hostess implies there is no defense that the applicant was objectively not the best qualified
Say what? That is ALWAYS the first defense. Most applicants will not get the job. We cannot have a system where everyone who applies and is passed over has a cause of action.
We indulge and practice DEIsm. Guilty!
"but all he needs to do is say he's trans and he goes to the front of the line."
I call that a "revers Klinger," he's not trying to get a Section 8 by wearing a dress, he's bucking for a promotion.
Even if the discriminated victim in this case has standing, it will be heard in blue wasteland New York and summarily dismissed by an Obama/Biden leftist judge who still thinks that Ricci v. Stefano doesn't count because " I'mma judge! Ipse Dixit! And I'm doing a preservation of "muH deMocraCY!" (TM)
And will chastise the plaintiff's attorney for not joining in solidarity with the NYT attorneys wearing "from the river to the sea! Fuck ICE!" Tshirts.
Whos the candidate what is his cv
Also on the IQ issue, they like to mix in pre-puberty test results, because before being steeped in testosterone, male and female brains perform at the same level.
Male and female brains perform at the same level because they add boy questions and girl questions to the IQ test until they both average the same 100. It's a calibration effect, not a real effect.
Wasn't it Huckabee who said that Israel should control all of the land from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean? Pot meet kettle.
The problem with privileging language skills to equalize IQ scores is that you can beautifully express ideas with language that make no logical sense.
Avoiding the Peter Principle (you rise to the level of your incompetence), according to Professor Peter, can be done by screwing up in harmless ways and so avoiding promotion, staying in a job you like and are good at. White men who are not management-aspiring have been quite happy.
Well, they openly admit that they intended to discriminate against white males which is absolutely a violation of the civil rights legislation. Now, can the EEOC win at trial in whatever jurisdiction (or whatever judge gets the case)? Don't know. We are well past the point that the laws as written mean anything in a federal court.
Women and blacks being promoted was mostly comedy, back when I was in corporate work. Nobody expected much of management of any kind.
Male versus female brain differences go far beyond IQ. First, male IQ distributions are spread out flat (more high highs and more low lows) while females tend to cluster around the median. However, the brain structures just work differently. Men indeed do better at environmental navigation and working with "things," while women do better with social tasks and emotional empathy. Men do better in math while women do better with language.
Regarding puberty and the lifecycle, check out the 2026 research on female "baby brain" after childbirth. About 5% of their gray matter disappears as they specialize in ultra-attentive caregiving for the young.
Tabula rasa social policies were the gravest scientific denial of the 20th century. We are not all the same. Full stop. This was fully debunked with the rise of fast fMRI research in the 2000s, and then wishful fluid gender identities came along and the equity goal posts shifted.
Three Days of the Condor (1975 version) has an ending lifesaver pointing to the NYT as a truth teller that can be relied on to spill the beans. Good old days of movie cliches.
Yeah that was unintentional comedy, the plot in question was published in harpers by edward luttwak
There's a white male clarinetist (IIRC) who did a blinded audition for an orchestra, was clearly the best by the judge scores, but he was passed over for an 'underrepresented minority'. He's suing.
Of course they did. They bragged about hiring "people of color." The managing editor said at the time that hiring other than "white men" had made the newsroom "better but even more importantly more diverse." It was a beautiful encapsulation of DEI where they accidentally tell the truth: discriminating on the basis of race and sex was more important than good reporting.
RIP Grey Lady. The Big Question for progressives is just how long did you think you could champion anti-constitutional practices and put that shit in writing! too?
The Left is about to find out that desperate impact is a bitch.
Their central pillar, that it's impossible to be racist against white people, is about to come crashing down on them.
If they have less than 30% straight white males on staff, that is proof positive of race hate, discrimination, and nazism.
Perfectly said. This is known as applying their standards to their actions for a change, which is something like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects it!.
Is there anything as racist as saying it's impossible to be racists against a race and then acting on it. It's uber-racism.
"White men who are not management-aspiring have been quite happy."
I did that when I got to what I considered the peak of my technical career, when my job was fun, full of creativity in problem solving, and working with a peer group of interesting and highly intelligent men, and a couple of women, I admit, and the last thing I wanted was to sell myself out for a few dollars more in a soul destroying mgmtnt job, but that's STEM.
"Even if the discriminated victim in this case has standing, it will be heard in blue wasteland..."
Although, it's not 100% predictive, there is nothing more predictive of legal outcomes today than who the judge is. It seems to me that in a just system that would be the least influential factor. It seems to becomes more just the more levels (judges) it goes through.
Coming soon: landmark case NY Times v Dhillon, 600 US 234 (2028). Holding: employment law violates freedom of the press. Not only can't you hold us responsible for libel; you can't tell us who we can hire to utter our libels. At least two if not three conservative justices join the three little maids from (woke) school. CC, JSM
"The NYT didn't think it had to be devious because to them, discrimination against White men isn't an issue."
This is exactly right. These people are so entrenched within their political/social bubble that they just automatically do the woke thing without any of them ever questioning what they're doing, or giving any thought to how it looks from outside the bubble. ("Is there an 'outside the bubble?'")
It seems unlikely that the lawsuit would have been filed if the white male applicant could not be shown to be far better qualified than at least one of the selected applicants. I predict the hypocrites at NYT will settle.
I predict that the EEOC will compile a bunch of old NYT news stories and social media posts from NYT's managers/staff. See Bari Weiss. The goal here is to settle, and/or drag NYT's reputation through the mud in a comprehensive and public way.
Discrimination suits don't often make it to jury trials, and a great many accusers get a token settlement with no admission of guilt. Trump learned from a decade of lawfare that the process is the punishment.
Devious = discrimination on the basis of race. Can I say this too: "I only hire white guys but I'm open to the consequences that fall on black women."
The poll is comedy gold.
@rhhardin: ..."Three Days of the Condor (1975 version) has an ending lifesaver pointing to the NYT as a truth teller that can be relied on to spill the beans...."
I remember it differently. Didn't the CIA guy ask Condor, 'how do you know they'll print it?', causing Condor to stop short....
My take was, it was the final denouement of many, in the film.
Dumb poll. There were NO white men qualified for the panel interview?
There were NO white men qualified for the panel interview?
Of course not. By definition. They were looking for someone to fill a slot as a Democratic Party propagandist. How you going to put a white dude in that job in this day and age?
I think you are focusing too much on the colloquial claim that X didn't get the job because discrimination. The cause of action is being eliminated from consideration for reasons laid out in non-discrimination law. It would have been just as discriminatory to shred his application because he was a white male as it would be to eliminate him in the final interview round. As noted, however, it's a lot harder to prove such discrimination the farther you advance which is why our hostess made the comment about the more devious approach being to allow him or another white male to advance to the panel interview but no farther.
a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female...walk into a bar
Isn't the real question, 'what was the composition of the panel, in DEI terms'?
This may be the chosen editor involved.
But scroll down for circumstantial evidence.
She got another promotion.
Gusty-
You left off the punchline:
They said, "Ouch!", diversely.
Once Jon a time straight white males had a major advantage in the work place — if they found themselves crossways with their boss they had to basically be honest with themselves. No blaming racism. No blaming homophobia. No blaming the patriarchy. Did your manager communicate his (or her) expectations for your work? Did you meet them? Can you improve or is the job beyond you or is the manager incompetent? If you fail to meet expectations, up your game or get out.
With DEI that’s not possible anymore. DEI has to go, and it has to hurt both the company and its leadership and, especially, HR.
Once upon a time …
The poll neglects the most obvious explanation: the position was obviously reserved for a 'minority' which means anyone but a hetero white dude. Once upon a time I'm sure the NYT and most every other news outlet treated white males very differently. They were the default choice -- they were the entire applicant pool, the qualified, the expected choice. You could call it bias. You could call it unfair. You could call it inertia. But those days ended quite a long time ago.
Wa St Blogger said...
But there has to be something in writing somewhere that can demonstrate that they used other criteria than work related qualities.
And there will be 100+ emails saying "we don't want a white male for this position", because they were very proud of this position at that time period.
The only question here is does the NYT settle before discovery? Because if they don't, discovery is going to be horrific for them.
"Return every internal email with 'white male' in it" is going to be a killer request
They will avoid going through discovery at all costs.
DEIoh. DEIoh. Daylight come and they may regret their choice.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.