\n<\/p>\n
The Equal Employment<\/span> Opportunity Commission, a key achievement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the federal agency tasked with protecting American workers from employment discrimination, sued the New York Times on behalf of a white man claiming the company discriminated against him based on his race and sex.<\/p>\n The lawsuit is signed not just by the agency\u2019s acting general counsel and deputy general counsel, but also Benjamin North, who The Intercept reported was hired earlier this year as assistant general counsel<\/a>.<\/p>\n North was suspended as a college student over a rape allegation in a case that he claimed violated his civil rights; he has consistently denied the charges. North went on to do work arguing that Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at federally funded institutions, has been used to discriminate against the rights of men.<\/p>\n North\u2019s signature on the new lawsuit against the New York Times could mean he wrote it, said Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC commissioner.<\/p>\n Asked about North\u2019s role, EEOC spokesperson Victor Chen referred The Intercept to the complaint.<\/p>\n The suit comes as part of President Donald Trump\u2019s campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion<\/a> policies across the country, including his administration\u2019s efforts to use the EEOC to these ends.<\/p>\n The new EEOC suit, filed Tuesday on behalf of an unnamed man whose identity New York Magazine<\/a> speculated about, alleges that the employee was passed over for a position because he is a white man.<\/p>\n The claimant applied for a job as a deputy real estate editor in January 2025 but, the lawsuit claims, despite meeting all the requirements for the position, he didn\u2019t get it because he \u201cdid not match the race and\/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership.\u201d Instead, the job went to a multiracial female candidate who the lawsuit alleges was not qualified.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no actual evidence that he was more qualified than her.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Feldblum, the former EEOC commissioner, was skeptical of the agency\u2019s legal argument.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no actual evidence that he was more qualified than her,\u201d Feldblum said.\u00a0Of the EEOC, she said, \u201cThey\u2019re putting out their best facts in this complaint, and the facts are pathetic.\u201d<\/p>\n Particularly for leadership positions, she pointed out, there are many aspects that go into deciding who is the most qualified candidate.<\/p>\n \u201cTheir assertion that she was less qualified than him is based on their view of the facts,\u201d she said. \u201cWe\u2019ll see what the facts actually say.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement<\/a>, the New York Times said it has merit-based employment practices.<\/p>\n \u201cThe New York Times categorically rejects the politically motivated allegations brought by the Trump administration\u2019s EEOC,\u201d said Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha. \u201cThroughout this process, the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC\u2019s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The EEOC\u2019s lawsuit claims that the company has \u201cengaged in unlawful employment practices\u201d since at least October 2024 through its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. It cites the company\u2019s self-published diversity goals, including a 2021 document setting a goal for increasing Black and Latino leadership by 50 percent within four years.<\/p>\n The Times was making \u201cemployment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,\u201d the lawsuit alleges. \u201cA necessary consequence of NYT\u2019s intent to increase the percentage of non-White leaders would be a decrease in the percentage of White leaders.\u201d<\/p>\n The assertion that the company has engaged in illegal racial and sex discrimination and is making employment decisions solely on those bases \u201cis simply not borne out by the evidence,\u201d Feldblum argued. The EEOC would instead have to have found evidence that hiring decisions were made expressly and intentionally based on such characteristics.<\/p>\n Instead, the actions the New York Times took are \u201cthe most basic, acceptable, legal ways to try to increase diversity in a workplace,\u201d Feldblum said. \u201cThere is literally nothing illegal in anything that the EEOC has detailed.\u201d<\/p>\n The only place where the Times could have potentially run into legal trouble, she said, was when it was requiring diverse candidate pools for jobs. But if done carefully, she said, that can follow the law as well \u2014 for example, by expanding a pool of candidates without removing any qualified white or male ones.<\/p>\n \u201cOne can include diversity as an employer without discriminating against white people,\u201d Feldblum said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kalpana Kotagal, the sole Democratic commissioner on the EEOC after Trump fired<\/a> the others contra statute, said<\/a> she voted against authorizing the lawsuit against the New York Times \u201cbecause I disagree with the substance of the case and don\u2019t believe it\u2019s a good use of scarce agency resources.\u201d <\/p>\n She added that \u201ca\u00a0commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA),\u00a0without more, is not\u00a0evidence\u00a0of\u00a0discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n As a reporter at the Times told<\/a> New York Magazine, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, there are plenty of white guys at the top of the New York Times. Not really something that\u2019s holding you back.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
Diversity Without Discrimination<\/h2>\n