· 200 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events May 6, 2026 at 11:48 AM

US rights agency sues New York Times for discriminating against white man passed over for promotion

Posted by AudibleNod

US rights agency sues New York Times for discriminating against white man passed over for promotion
AP News
US rights agency sues New York Times for discriminating against white man passed over for promotion
A federal civil rights agency filed a discrimination lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times, claiming that the new organization passed over a white male employee for a promotion in favor of a lesser qualified woman to meet its diversity goals.
🚩 Report this post

200 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Flash_ina_pan 5 days ago +4396
So he got passed over for a promotion and in his *opinion* the woman who got it is less qualified than him. For a real estate editor role. In a dying media.
4396
TheAskewOne 5 days ago +1145
People don’t understand how hiring or promotions work. When you have several qualified applicants you don’t always take the one with the most impressive resume or achievements. You take the reasonably qualified person who will be the best fit for the team. That can be because of their personality, soft skills, because they are trained in a very particular thing that could be useful later, that could be because they’ll be immediately operational and the other applicant will need more training, that could be because their experience complements someone else’s on the team… the fact that that person might have been "more qualified" doesn’t mean that they were the person the team needed in the position.
1145
eugeneugene 5 days ago +632
My coworker who has worked here for 40 years has been passed up on the supervisor role everytime. Because he would be the *worst* supervisor lol. He's just genuinely unpleasant to be around and management knows that people would quit en masse if he were in charge lmao. He is, on paper, the most qualified guy for the job. But he would be a financial disaster for the company lol
632
Draxx01 5 days ago +114
A lot of corps have technical tracks for this reason. Sometimes you just need someone to keep getting promotions w/o additional responsibilities. Sometimes you just need an egghead making like 2x the Sr manager in charge of herding them but knows how to deal with all the shit.
114
ThisIsMyCouchAccount 4 days ago +61
I wish they were more common. Because even if a person could go into management that doesn't mean they want to.
61
Bodark43 4 days ago +32
It's a long-standing fix to the long-standing problem of management tending to reward people by making them into management, instead of rewarding them in other ways for doing their jobs.
32
AssassinAragorn 5 days ago +250
I think "the most qualified" is a misnomer. The guy you're talking about isn't the most qualified to be a leader, because people don't like to work with him. He might be the most experienced or the most knowledgeable, but that doesn't translate to meeting qualifications
250
eugeneugene 5 days ago +90
You're right, experienced is the word I should've used
90
Animeninja2020 4 days ago +19
I had a supervisor sort of like that one time. Very smart guy, great at his role but he hit the company pay wall for his job description. So they promoted him, you could tell he hated it. Upper mgmt did not like him as well after that promotion, as he had no issue on calling out stupid corporate ideas. As well projects started to get behind, I was in a meeting when a sales guy asked why project X was 3 weeks behind schedule. He out right said "because I have attended stupid meeting and fill out stupid reports that no one reads to make people happy". He proved his point that the guy did not read his report when he started to quiz him in the middle of the meeting on details of the last report that he wrote. He later got a demotion but kept some of the pay hike. As a tech lead he was great to work under but ask him to interact with non-tech people was not fun for them or him.
19
Sunlit53 4 days ago +59
We used to have someone like that around here. He was in a union protected job with the rest of us so they couldn’t fire him easily for the rude shit he pulled. He was a very bad match for the workplace culture. He liked to order people around, and this included telling people they had to finish the job they were doing instead of taking their legally mandated break/lunch on time. It wasn’t a time sensitive task. And that’s not something you tell a diabetic. He was just being a d***. So a non union manager level job came up, the people in charge floated the information in his direction and he applied. They gave it to him. He carried on with the same authoritarian shit and this time they could and did fire him. No union at that level. Sucker.
59
eugeneugene 4 days ago +19
Haha our supervisor role is also non union, and he sounds exactly like the guy at your work. Right down to the trying to get people to skip their mandated breaks to finish tasks that... don't need to be finished rn. He would've been fired 39 years ago if we weren't union hahaha
19
SessionClimber 4 days ago +7
Wait. None of your fellow union members file grievances with the union that a union members was trying to take away your own negotiate rights?
7
Bob_A_Feets 4 days ago +10
See, we used to give people like that supervisor roles with no reports or authority, just to show that the person is extremely valuable, but we want them to stay in their little office.
10
Bobcatluv 5 days ago +7
And this is the way it ought to be. I work in academia where being in the same job for 20 years actually *does* qualify some people for management in the eyes of others who’ve been promoted for similar reasons and have seen the fallout in those departments. In each of those bad situations it was a man saying that he *deserves* a promotion because of his time spent at the institution and because he has a wife/kids/house, etc. (don’t we all?) The “I deserve a promotion because I’ve been here forever” people never take training or attempt to show leadership qualities in their present roles.
7
WRXminion 4 days ago +2
The Peter principle. Or Dilbert..
2
AssassinAragorn 5 days ago +104
I'm in engineering, and soft skills + fit is incredibly underrated. If I was asked to give my recommendation between two candidates where: * Candidate A had the highest GPA in college and 5+ years of experience, but in the interviews they were arrogant, weren't good at conveying their thoughts in a constructive way, and handled disagreements poorly * Candidate B had a respectable GPA and 3 years of experience, but in interviews they were humble, had good examples of resolving disagreements calmly, and communicated very clearly I'd pick Candidate B. Sure, Candidate A might have a stronger technical background, but all the genius in the world doesn't matter if you can't explain it to others or work collaboratively. Very little engineering work gets done by a single person, it's always a team effort that involves multiple disciplines. I want someone who can do that interfacing and tell me what's going on. No matter how smart Candidate A is, they won't always be right, and I need them to be willing to learn and incorporate feedback when they aren't. Frankly technical knowledge is more of a checkbox to me than a metric. You've got a grasp of the basics, know how to apply them, and seek deeper understanding? That's sufficient. There's a ton that will need to be taught and mentored no matter how much of an expert they are.
104
unstoppable_zombie 5 days ago +40
The way I've always put it is: I can teach them the technical part of the job, I cannot teach them how to stop being a dickhead.
40
BradPittbodydouble 5 days ago +162
Yeah as an actual HR employee people truly don't know how any of it works. Soft skills are extremely important. Someone once said in it that we probably wouldn't hire them in gov since they're a white male. That instantly lost them any good will from all the evaluators. I've never hired someone 'unqualified'. Inexperienced yes, which is something that only experience can beat.
162
jdoeinboston 5 days ago +54
Not an HR person myself, but I imagine there's plenty of situations where "inexperienced" might be considered a boon, like bringing a new perspective into the department or lower salary expectations for a less experienced but still entirely viable candidate.
54
TheLindenTree 5 days ago +18
This is anecdotal, but a few years ago we needed another person at my work, and we hired a young grad over an experienced candidate. My supervisor told me th experienced guy was "intense", and got a vibe that he would always do things his way instead of the way we need it done. The new grad is now one of our best team members.
18
Bobcatluv 4 days ago +19
\>Someone once said in it that we probably wouldn’t hire them in gov since they’re a white male I work in higher education and, while hiring isn’t part of my regular job duties, I’ve served on several hiring committees over the years. The inability of some candidates to stop sabotaging themselves with this shit has been truly mind blowing to me. Our university is a well-known, “woke” institution (it isn’t really, but I digress) to the public so applicants totally know what they’re signing up for when they apply. Also, international students bring a lot of money to the uni so yeah, it’s not ideal to hire bigots to stay in business. With the above points in mind, on my last committee we requested, “please describe how you function and communicate effectively and respectfully within the context of varying beliefs, behaviors and backgrounds.” It’s a total softball question that doesn’t even address race exclusively, yet two people fucked it up. A white guy in his 50s was flip about it, replying “yeah I do the DEI stuff and go to trainings,” which didn’t answer the question. A white woman of the same age told a story about how she “helped” a gay student, except when she shared what she actually did, she didn’t help and made things worse for the student *because* she was gay. I’m in my mid-40s so not much younger than these people. It isn’t f****** rocket science; don’t be a d***.
19
PeruvianHeadshrinker 5 days ago +203
You're saying you wouldn't want to hire someone into a lead position with skin so thin they'd go whining to court to ruin their reputation because they're so triggered for not being special enough? You just hate white people /S
203
Gmony5100 5 days ago +110
Glad someone else pointed this out lol. It reminds me of the guys who go ballistic when a woman rejects them and the only conclusion you can really draw is “well damn it looks like she made the right choice”. He got passed over for a promotion and his reaction is to sue due to discrimination…as a white guy…yeah they dodged a bullet there
110
Babshearth 5 days ago +10
i once had an ex who described a woman who went date him as "likely a lesbian" i was rofl and he didn't understand why.
10
stevez_86 5 days ago +7
It is always about winning to them. Who wants to do a job that is fighting you over a promotion. So much of the system is supposed to be predicated on you having to be the best at your role by being the best for your role, regardless of who you are personally. And now when people are told that getting a promotion or getting a cushy job or gig would require extra effort than what is in their comfort zone they react vicsiously towards the notion that they are not the best for the role and function anymore, or at least not now. We say what cops do is ok because they are cops instead of asking if what they did is in the nature of the role and function. It is constantly lowering the bar for what is expected of the role simply because someone has the role and acted outside of that function. We have decided that a President can launch an attack on the Capital because a President did it, instead of saying that act was outside of the Presidency and is therefore not subject to any of the priveleges of the President. It's like spontaneous registration or termination isn't a thing. Like an employee can take a shit on the conference table and it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to decide that because he was in that role and someone in that role wouldn't do that, that he didn't do it, but if he did do it, it is ok because he can't be removed from authority because of a single bad act. It would cause chaos to lose a project manager or whatever right now. It is all so stupid.
7
Ikken4122 4 days ago +5
Also “more qualified” can equal “too good for this role and likely to jump ship when opportunity presents”
5
useronlyone 5 days ago +18
This is true but legally his position isn’t untenable. If the listed requirements are like, for example, 6+ years o this experience, and 4+ years of that experience, and successful candidate has 4 and 2 respectfully but otherwise subjectively demonstrates a good fit, those (of a different protected class) with at least 6 and 4 who are pissed will have an immediate case. It will be up to the employer to really explain why they went the way they did. That costs money, and very much pressure to do something now.
18
Frank9567 4 days ago +15
Quite true. All of that. However, now it's before a tribunal, the employer will have to justify why he was passed over. It may turn out that it was because of his skin color...and he'll have a win. However, if that's not the case, the employers cannot afford to hold back on whatever his shortcomings might be. They'll have to go all out on why he's not suitable/the best. If he isn't damn certain of his case, every single fault he has will be publicly broadcast, and likely follow him round for the rest of his career. So, if he has been discriminated against, I wish him success. But if he's just being a d***, then his career is likely over.
15
useronlyone 4 days ago +4
Yup. But I think most folks filing charges and what not are in the burn bridges phase of their life, so they are past the point of caring. I will say, though, civil dockets aren’t really heavily trolled by most employers, sets them up for retaliation stuff if they do, too.
4
Taellosse 5 days ago +15
All true. Could also be that one applicant is a misogynist and self-important a******, and the other is a woman who is better at managing people without fostering hostility, resentment, and dysfunction.
15
NorthernerWuwu 5 days ago +3
It might be that one will do it for less money!
3
amateur_mistake 5 days ago +11
And one of those soft skills is absolutely life experience. It's useful to have people of, say, different races on you leadership team. Economically useful for your company.
11
Egon88 5 days ago +53
But wouldn't that be the same case if it were the other way around. These things are always going to start with someone feeling they got treated unfairly.
53
Spire_Citron 4 days ago +6
Yeah, which is why these cases are always pretty hard to prove and usually take more than someone simply feeling like they're more qualified.
6
Egon88 4 days ago +11
If there's no evidence, it won't go anywhere. But the starting point is always just someone's opinion that they were treated unfairly.
11
LaconicLacedaemonian 5 days ago +814
> The EEOC claimed the news organization’s publicly stated goals of increasing the number of women and people of color in its leadership ranks influenced the decision to exclude the white male applicant for a final round of interviews, while advancing three women and a Black man. This seems relevant.
814
CarelessPackage1982 5 days ago +53
I've been on several hiring committees for several different companies. It's insane what some people will openly say in those things. I've had to remind several people to please stop discussing a person's gender, race or religion as part of the hiring requirements. No idea if that's what's going on in this case but I've seen it happen.
53
Competitive_Touch_86 4 days ago +24
It's pretty much endemic in almost every org of any size at this point. Most folks are smart enough to not put it in writing, but when they are in the "trust circle" the real feelings and opinions come out. And they absolutely impact final decision making even if everyone says hey we can't decide on that factor. Been in rooms where it was "we have too many men, we need to promote a woman this time" when it was obvious the women candidates were nowhere near as qualified for the role. Also been in rooms where hiring decisions were made for high level positions where married women of a certain age were at a huge disadvantage due to the chances of them getting pregnant a couple years down the road. Any factor you can think of is openly discussed at some point. Lots of times outright, but many times couched in corporate double speak language. I was told by a HR management trainer that I could fire any white male under 40 I wanted to as long as they weren't disabled or gay, but everyone else was effectively a protected class that had to go through a process. That process made protected classes effectively immune to being fired so long as they showed up and looked busy. Due to the above, guess which candidates had a tougher time getting initially hired? Managers who didn't even think too much about it always subconsciously were leaning towards the people they could hire fast and fire fast if they ended up unsuitable for the role. No one wanted to get stuck with a horrible employee on their team for the year or two it would take to get rid of them. It's rampant and effects literally everyone in different ways. Corporate HR is entirely incompetent at most places.
24
LaconicLacedaemonian 4 days ago +22
I was once instructed to flag diversity candidates; they would get priority attention and do-overs for close calls.  People think "as long as you can clear the pole vault bar, who cares?" but its a thumb on the scale if candidates get a fast track to the finals and do-over attempts.
22
Available_Ad5243 4 days ago +8
Discovery in this case should be interesting...
8
Few_Entertainer_385 5 days ago +899
If it’s even true. This is the [same EEOC that ignored all discrimination claims by trans people for the last year](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eeoc-will-consider-trans-discrimination-cases-after-burying-them-for-months/ar-AA1Imz9X) > In April, staffers at the EEOC were reportedly instructed to classify new gender identity discrimination cases as code “C,” the agency’s lowest priority and one that staffers said is generally reserved for meritless complaints.
899
Pettifoggerist 5 days ago +286
Worse - they dropped court cases on behalf of trans people were started during the Biden administration.
286
BaconBoyReddit 5 days ago +50
This is true. I’m a trans person and I was fired five months ago for clearly discriminatory reasons. My EEOC coordinator, during my intake, started arguing on behalf of my employer. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I wasn’t even fired because of my gender identity, it was ableism, but the response from the EEOC was shocking. Within two hours they decided not to pursue my case - a two year case for a very high salary position at a company that I’m certain this administration wouldn’t want to pursue. The EEOC has been gutted in the last two years and does not care about actual discrimination.
50
WhoIsFrancisPuziene 5 days ago +9
The EEOC has been much more selective for quite some time now. But that coordinator sounds terrible
9
BaconBoyReddit 5 days ago +13
I was downright shocked to hear these things coming out of his mouth. Like, I’m familiar with the ADA, and I couldn’t believe how hard he was arguing against the validity of my case. It was bizarre - like I’d understand feedback or whatever, I’ve been doing a similar process with my state’s anti-discrimination force, but this dude was straight up going to bat for my employer. 
13
InsuranceToTheRescue 5 days ago +47
Yes, but have you considered that the redhat government is more about wielding power to punish those they disagree with? I mean, it's the same with Comey's prosecution. The punishment is the process. Trump doesn't like the NYT, he whines about them all the time, and so one of his agencies has decided to make them pay a ton of money to defeat a frivolous lawsuit.
47
littlechangeling 5 days ago +237
A claim is just that, a claim. It’s not evidence.
237
yo2sense 5 days ago +127
It speaks to the organization's viewpoint. Just like with an individual, anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. So it *is* evidence. It's just not much to hang a case on.
127
therealhankypanky 5 days ago +58
No, it’s not evidence. It is an accusation. “The EEOC claimed that”. Doesn’t mean that claim is accurate or truthful and it’s coming from an organization that appears to have ulterior motives.
58
BeaverBoyBaxter 5 days ago +38
The claim isn't evidence, but the NYT's "publicly stated goals of increasing the number of women and people of color in its leadership ranks" is evidence, and probably will be used as evidence in court.
38
yo2sense 5 days ago +13
That's a good point. If the claim is untrue then it's not evidence. It seems to be partially true: > To drive progress on our published goal to increase Black and Latino representation in leadership by 50 percent by 2025, we gave particular attention to strengthening systems and processes that help attract and retain leaders from diverse backgrounds. Although: >We are no longer seeing underrepresentation of women in our workforce or leadership. https://www.nytco.com/2021-new-york-times-diversity-and-inclusion-report/
13
jdoeinboston 5 days ago +9
The only "evidence" here is that these dipshits don't understand how these sorts of initiatives actually work. It's not about promoting or hiring based on gender or race, corporations large enough to launch DEI initiatives know better, it's about identifying qualified candidates of a diverse background who may not otherwise apply and encouraging them to do so. This is, as people like the dude suing love to say, a nothingburger.
9
yo2sense 5 days ago +5
I agree there is no 'there' there. Or at least that it's very unlikely. But that doesn't mean a stated goal of an intent to hire fewer whites can't be a piece evidence. Evidence isn't proof.
5
sly_cooper25 5 days ago +25
> The lawsuit claims that the woman ultimately appointed deputy real estate editor “did not have experience with real estate journalism” but “as a multiracial female, this candidate matched the race and/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership.” The EEOC said one final panel interviewer described her as “a bit green overall.” They are claiming that one of the finalists advanced over him lacked experience overall and did not have any experience in real estate journalism specifically. Sounds like they even have one of the interviewers on record stating that. Obviously the initial complaint is going to be from just one side's POV, but that's pretty compelling to me if it's true.
25
deevilvol1 5 days ago +15
Key word on “one of the finalists” As another commenter stated, it’s not like it was him and a woman left and they went “meh, we will hire the woman because DiVerSiTy”. If they have *that* on record, then sure, they have a more solid case (but even then, it would likely need more evidence). Instead he was passed over even before the final round of interview But even if it was the final interviews, you can be under qualified for a position and interview really well, and land ahead of better qualified applicants, it’s a thing. It happens. It happens all the time. It just recently happened at my job (I knew two of the candidates for a manager position, one had more experience in leadership, tried and tested, but the other was learning the ropes fast, and is very charismatic, they chose the one that they felt would flourish and grow faster and spoke the best). That’s why you tend to need pretty strong evidence to prove discrimination, even when it’s obvious. Enough precedent has shown that “obvious” isn’t enough, it tends to need to be blatant. As someone who actually thinks DEI is something companies should strive for, I still don’t think proving discrimination hires should have such a low bar. Perhaps if it becomes a consistent practice that can be tracked, sure, but this was, again, after rounds of interviews. More directly, “on paper I was more much more qualified, and they said as much, so why didn’t they select me for the last round of interviews?” is not, nor should be, enough for courts. They tend to want a smoking gun.
15
deadfisher 5 days ago +37
Claims can be evidence.
37
RevolutionaryGain823 5 days ago +109
Can’t comment on how the NYT works but over the past few years at a couple big international companies I’ve been on hiring committees where senior management unofficially “strongly suggested” we hire a candidate we all agreed wasn’t the most qualified because they needed to hit metrics for “x% of new hires this year were women”
109
MoonBatsRule 4 days ago +2
Can you define "*most* qualified"? Do you give the candidates tests? Do you use college GPA? What quantitative measures do you use to determine "most"?
2
RedditReader4031 5 days ago +6
The only valid question is whether the most qualified is the only one who can do the job. Unless all the other candidates are deemed to be unqualified, there’s nothing wrong with selecting one who at least meets the stated requirements. Even civil service often allows a one in three selection process.
6
Serial-Griller 5 days ago +12
I think the confusion comes in that 'diversity of life experience' isn't quantifiable in a way that makes it into the interview but is nonetheless extremely useful from a decision making perspective. Which is why, I think, you'll fund much more DEI practices in managerial roles, while zero entry level jobs will implement the program (over just firing and hiring warm bodies in an endless treadmill). 
12
Flash_ina_pan 5 days ago +116
That in no way means the women and other guy were less qualified. And frankly, it's the papers first amendment right to make a public statement to support women and minorities. It doesn't prove discrimination.
116
TheRedLions 5 days ago +114
It doesn't mean they were less qualified, but if they are less qualified then a statement like that may be problematic.
114
Flash_ina_pan 5 days ago +107
I think the bigger problem for the case is that four other people were selected to proceed over him. He is basically claiming that all four are less qualified then him. It's not like he was a top two candidate. He was a fifth place finisher who is mad about it.
107
elegantdinnerparty 5 days ago +79
> He was a fifth place finisher who is mad about it. Riley Gaines mindset.
79
TheRedLions 5 days ago +48
It really hinges on their qualifications. If all are noticeably less qualified then he has a decent case, if any are about the same as him or better he doesn't. I don't think we have enough info to say one way or the other, both scenarios are feasible.
48
PrincessDonut02 5 days ago +57
I think we all know, as adults, that someone might be more qualified on paper, but when you interview them they are clearly not the right fit for the position/team/company. What is on paper is not the only thing that matters. Are you able to hold a conversation, practice general etiquette and manners etcetc. I got my first career job over a man who had way more experience than me because he showed up to the interview in a ratty tshirt and hadn't pursued the license that he very easily could have already had. I had zero experience in the field itself just some applicable entry level experience, and they chose me instead.
57
Holoholokid 5 days ago +16
And even more than that, if you interview, but are having an "off" day, the interviewer has to go on what they see and can suss out about you as a person. If you didn't interview well that day compared to others, then there's nothign the interviewer can do about that perception they gained of you. It's not always the case and maybe not even in this case, but it's why you always have to, as they say, bring your A-game to every interview.
16
antonimbus 5 days ago +27
and as an interviewer these are all things you have to document at the time of the interview. I make meticulous documentation because I'm aware there could be a dispute with HR afterward of any bias or discrimination. If the interviewer in this case was properly diligent, this case should be pretty simple. If not, there could be a settlement and a promise of more training involved just to get it out of court.
27
cinyar 5 days ago +34
>It really hinges on their qualifications. There are plenty of "soft" qualifications that are hard to quantify. Deputy editor is a management position. Just because you're a good journalist doesn't mean you'll be good at managing journalists. Peter principle and all that.
34
KimJongFunk 5 days ago +12
I have seen it happen both ways in my career. I’ve seen minorities be passed over in favor of promoting white people and I’ve also seen the most qualified candidate be passed over in favor of someone from a minority class. The former is more common, but I’ve seen the latter happen as well. I resent the older generations for creating the systemic racism because it would be nice to be able to pick the most qualified candidate without having to worry about these things :/
12
naijaboiler 5 days ago +24
>I resent the **older generations for creating the systemic racism** because it would be nice to be able to pick the most qualified candidate without having to worry about these things  I like to remind people that systemic racism does not need actively intentional racists to exist and perpetuate. if we are not a part of a fixing it today by intentionally engaging the topic bottom up, we are inadvertently perpetuating it. That includes you and I.
24
WhatShouldMyNameBe 5 days ago +11
Not necessarily. He wasn’t given an interview in the final round. Only one candidate would need to be less qualified and advanced over him due to race or gender to prove discrimination.
11
johndoe4sho 5 days ago +40
Have you ever done hiring before? You can very be qualified and not be a good fit it happens all the time. Hiring is very subjective, this will be very difficult to prove.
40
[deleted] 5 days ago +24
[removed]
24
jdoeinboston 5 days ago +12
The issue with this assumption is that "less qualified" is wildly subjective. NYT wanting more diversity in leadership is immaterial without factual confirmation that it impacts their hiring. DEI initiatives are about encouraging diverse candidates to look into and apply for roles they may not otherwise, not as a determination for which candidates to move forward. Any company large enough to have a DEI initiative knows this because their HR knows that you can't hire or promote based on race/gender.
12
PalpatineForEmperor 5 days ago +12
You don't think they can achieve the goal of more women and people of color in leadership roles by simply giving equal consideration to these systemically underrepresented groups?
12
FriendlyPlatypus6060 5 days ago +4
Hey fun story, couple years ago at my old company, which handles almost exclusively federal contracts, an employee called me a terrorist apropos of nothing and a senior VP laughed and said they should stick me in a Hamas t-shirt (I'm brown for context). After HR circled the wagons and told me to deal with it, I went to the EEOC which proceeded to do jack shit. So glad they're fighting real discrimination. Fellow POCs, this system will never help you. It's designed to suck your blood of value and remind you every day it considers you less than. Transgress and destroy these systems wherever you can. Since the EEOC nor HR wanted to help, I decided to write a letter detailing the harassment very clearly and then "leak" it to LinkedIn and universities they were hoping to work with. F*** white supremacy.
4
Wolfeh2012 5 days ago +58
3 women and 1 black man being more qualified than a white guy? I, for one, automatically believe this is discrimination with no further information. Edit: For specifically u/SpaceLemming "/s"
58
ClassicT4 5 days ago +35
Just another fifth place right-wing grifter.
35
blanko_nino 5 days ago +10
Can't you be a left winger and white and also feel discriminated against?
10
bayleysgal1996 5 days ago +6
Why is it always the ones in fifth place who scream they’re being discriminated against because woke? They weren’t even close to winning!
6
[deleted] 5 days ago +19
[removed]
19
jdoeinboston 5 days ago +11
Not remotely. My ex-wife worked in DEI at a massive corporation some years back. Even if we take EEOC's claims at face value (which I'm unprepared to do for all the reasons others have outlined), programs like that are meant to get people of more diverse backgrounds to apply in the first place, not as a standard for hiring. Once you're actually hiring, you're going with the best candidate rather than just defaulting to the best candidate who is also a white guy (which is what tended to happen prior to DEI initiatives).
11
Dresses_and_Dice 5 days ago +13
Is it so hard to believe that the top four candidates for a job might *not* include a white man? That maybe three women and a black man were actually better candidates?
13
LaconicLacedaemonian 5 days ago +42
No actually, law of large numbers this would occur in one out of N scenarios anyway. Given 50% white male pool with 32 candidates total this would occur 5% of the time due to random chance. I'm interested in discovery, and what was discussed, which can only be looked at with a lawsuit. 
42
Dresses_and_Dice 5 days ago +10
But interviews are not "random chance" events, and a 5% chance of something happening is unlikely but not inherently suspicious. 5% is 1 in 20. Ever play D&D or anything like that? There will be a few 20's rolled on the 20 sided dice each session. Everyone will celebrate because its kinda rare, but it's also common enough that no one is going to accuse you of cheating like it's just inconceivable to roll. This isn't the l******.
10
LaconicLacedaemonian 5 days ago +31
I was saying that even if all candidates were equally qualified this would still happen randomly.
31
airbornecz 5 days ago +4
it seems - racist
4
bosscoughey 5 days ago +96
If it's only his opinion, then he obviously won't win the case. If there's more evidence that they discriminated based on sex or race, then he should win. What's the big deal? Why are we all jumping to conclusions about a suit that's just been filed?
96
Flash_ina_pan 5 days ago +111
Because this administration is ridiculously grasping at straws to target people and companies they don't like. The EEOC have been ignoring stronger cases from trans people and minorities and is instead going after the NYT which just happens to be on the tangerine toddlers hate list.
111
__worldpeace 5 days ago +17
Not to mention its is extremely rare for the EEOC to litigate claims themselves. I used to be a Title VII paralegal. While filing with the EEOC before being allowed to file a petition in federal court is required by law for all complainants, it is treated more as a formality. Clients and attorneys do not expect the EEOC to pick up the case themselves; that is reserved for the most egregious cases, or cases they feel would make for good precedent. You would not believe the shit I saw when I was working in this area of law. Employers are insane. But this guy at the NYT? F****** please. The EEOC barely glances at some of the most insane cases. Yet they took this one. It's incredibly obvious what's going on here.
17
SimilarMeeting8131 4 days ago +3
If you look up eeoc their website preview on Google talks about ‘dei related discrimination’, they’re working under Trump admin after all
3
LostBob 5 days ago +13
This case has at least 2 things Trump hates. It’s hard not to believe that has everything to do with why it’s being pushed forward.
13
hedoeswhathewants 5 days ago +33
Because it's a government agency, acting under this administration which does *nothing* in good faith, suing one of the administration's enemies over what is effectively a DEI issue. Nothing about this passes the smell test. There's absolutely no chance the agency gets involved if this isn't a white man.
33
TuctDape 5 days ago +8
It's not about winning the case it's about inflicting punishment on institutions who dare to hire anyone but white men. NYT will be fine they're huge and have resources, smaller news organizations who can't afford the lawsuits will think twice about hiring a black woman if they might get sued about it.
8
TUGrad 4 days ago +2
Yes, according to this guy, the woman with over a decades worth of experience as a senior editor wasn't qualified for the job of deputy editor.
2
AudibleNod 5 days ago +892
>EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has been a staunch champion of the Trump administration’s campaign against corporate diversity policies that she argues veer into discrimination against white men and others. In December, Lucas posted a social media call urging white men to come forward with complaints if they believe they have faced discrimination because of their employer’s diversity policies. It's clear what this administration is doing. But that shouldn't stop people from filing legitimate EEOC complaints. Like, all the time. Put the Trump/Epstein administration on notice.
892
ElectroMagnetsYo 5 days ago +225
Why is the chair a woman? Sounds like a DEI hire to me /s
225
Ok_Background22 5 days ago +23
Unironically true
23
Connect_Reading9499 5 days ago +45
In related news, every disabled person forced out of their role and can't get the EEOC to listen to a word, have released a statement: AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHHHHHHGGGGGGG! 
45
skorchedangel 4 days ago +5
Urging white men to come forward? Seems like the EEOC is deciding where to put their resources based on sex/ race. I hear that is frowned upon.
5
NaziPunksFkOff 5 days ago +509
Conservatives think every white president of the United States won because they were the most qualified person for the job, and Barack Obama only won because he was black.
509
mrdilldozer 4 days ago +9
You're more correct than you know. They hired Michael Steele as the head of the RNC immediately after that election. They wouldn't take any of his proposals seriously and he was directly told by leadership he was hired because he was black and the GOP thought he would attract more black voters.
9
BigBrownDog12 5 days ago +95
I've always seen it described as "2008 was a fluke because of the recession, but Obama winning over Romney in 2012 was seen as a betrayal"
95
watermelonsugar888 5 days ago +14
Imagine Mittens Romney being our president.
14
Left-Soup-4931 5 days ago +60
Sounds like a dream compared to the current guy
60
Olealicat 4 days ago +4
Who knows. We all might be wearing magical underwear right now, of that were the case.
4
jupiterkansas 4 days ago +7
Instead of Trump? Yes, please.
7
Loves_octopus 4 days ago +3
Far from a top pick but he was a decent guy. I’ll settle for any reasonable competent person with experience that truly wants the best for my country. I think Romney was all three though I disagree with him on many things.
3
ken_NT 4 days ago +3
Remember when he called Russia our enemy and everyone made fun of him? Man, I miss those days.
3
iTzGiR 5 days ago +75
>Conservatives think every white president of the United States won because they were the most qualified person for the job I'm not sure you've seen how they talk about Biden or Clinton, or really any Democratic President (all of which outside of Obama, have been "white guys"). Like what conservatives are praising Joe Biden as being more qualified than Trump in 2020?
75
NaziPunksFkOff 5 days ago +15
Replace "president" with "pool of people who had a chance at the presidency" and you get my point. The point is, conservatives believe white people earn things but brown people are given things. 
15
Unlucky-Candidate198 5 days ago +15
Yeah, it’s more tribalism and patriotism for “their team”than pure racism from that group, although (sadly) most people associate their race as part of the whole tribalism aspect (i.e. more like me). Don’t get me wrong, they’re still one of the single most racist voting groups around, no doubt. But I agree with you that it’s slightly *less* about that, and more about human psychology doing its baseline idiotic thing of having to “other” groups of people. That combined with the much lower standards of education right-wingers have and well…this is one of the more common results.
15
DeathMonkey6969 5 days ago +11
Not all Republicans are overtly racist but all the overtly racist people are Republicans.
11
NamelessCabbage 5 days ago +12
It's so bad that I STILL see people posting about Michelle being "trans".
12
patriot2024 5 days ago +7
It's unclear if Mr. Obama could pass a test, identifying a squirrel from an alligator, a bear, and an elephant.
7
TUGrad 4 days ago +2
Honestly, that's literally shat they think about any minority in any high ranking position. 
2
Gamble007 5 days ago +100
Legitimate question... Discrimination (race, sex, age, etc.) has always been a concern in the hiring process, so why haven't we taken steps to push for more anonymity so applicants can actually be evaluated on their qualifications instead of potential biases? Resumes could have personal information removed, interviews could be done over video with no camera and an audio filter that normalizes everyone's voice. I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect, but it feels like it could be a step in the right direction to give applicants a more fair shake and maybe even force businesses to place a greater emphasis on what they're truly looking for in a candidate.
100
Dottsterisk 5 days ago +185
Because people typically want to really meet the applicants before hiring them. This idea that a person can be wholly evaluated based on test scores and resumes doesn’t hold water for most. Hell, Christopher Nolan made a whole movie about that.
185
KingOfCruel 5 days ago +6
What movie
6
Zagerer 5 days ago +9
What was the movie?
9
the__ghola__hayt 5 days ago +31
The Dark Knight
31
kintsugionmymind 5 days ago +87
Because you hire and work with human beings, not resumes.
87
InternationalYam3130 5 days ago +12
Resumes mean almost nothing once you start working. They are just a list of previous jobs. Gives zero information whether you were competent at those previous jobs and how you are as a person. I can list a job on my resume that I was late to every day for a year. And barely did anything. It's easier to get a feel for that talking to someone.
12
BradPittbodydouble 5 days ago +30
You don't get a full read of the person that way unfortunately. We do this in my gov position up until the virtual recorded interview questions, but cannot proceed without further meeting the person, seeing culture fit, personality, social skills, etc. AI has been used to try and game the systems that way and we've had just fake AI bots try and get hired. It's going to have to make us change policies even more in unexpected ways.
30
ConsistentDay5620 5 days ago +7
But how does one describe “culture fits” in a job posting? What does that even mean anyway? Aren’t most of those statements things like “we’re a family” or “we pride ourselves on being face paced” so it’s non-quantifiable stuff every company should be doing already (caring for their workers and delivering quickly on promised deadlines). I think company “culture” is honestly just a catch all way to say “we don’t like you or want you here because of \_\_\_\_\_\_ but we can’t say that or we will get sued” which has very little to do with someone’s ability to perform a job imo.
7
Frelock_ 5 days ago +22
In my experience it's "we don't like you because you're kinda an a******" which isn't something you can sue over, but is impolite to just say to a candidate's face. Sure, they might be able to do the job better than anyone else, but if you're making me and my coworkers miserable or even just uncomfortable while doing it, I don't want you on my team.
22
kintsugionmymind 4 days ago +8
You can't describe it in a job posting. And I wouldn't want to! It's truly a "do I want to spend a lot of time with you, and rely on you as part of a team" vibe check. Which DOES impact your ability to perform the job, unless the role is completely siloed.
8
AdvanceSure7685 4 days ago +6
They trialed that in the past, and then stopped because it resulted in more white males being hired.
6
wesborland1234 5 days ago +9
Good hiring managers already do this to some extent. I always did. The reason most people don't is it requires acknowledging that you might have subconscious biases against certain groups, in a society where being considered prejudiced is just about the worst thing you can be... "*I'm* not racist/sexist. Therefore, *I* can look at candidates and be objective." Also, at some point you pretty much need to have a face-to-face conversation, and allow for some subjectivity. In this specific case, it was for a promotion, not hiring, so it's not like they could pretend they didn't know these people.
9
Gamble007 4 days ago +2
That's a great point, internal hires and promotions would definitely be more problematic if they even wanted to try to maintain some sort of anonymity since people are likely accustomed to the speaking patterns and mannerisms of their coworkers. As far as the face-to-face, yeah I didn't mean to imply that anonymity would be kept throughout the entire process. At some point you need to "meet" the person you're potentially hiring. Ideally by that point people will have built up an impression based on the applicant's skills, making them less susceptible to other biases.
2
Illustrious-Grl-7979 5 days ago +2
When I was a manager, I interviewed and selected several people for hire based on phone interviews and their qualifications, even pre-covid. Race, gender, and age were not and do not have to be factors.
2
Brilliant_Oil5261 5 days ago +3
This would be a nightmare. I need to know if people would be cool working with someone when I interview them. I look for all sorts of red flags in body language and facial expressions. I want nothing to do with arrogant or egotistical people for example, and you can't get that by totally anonymous interviews.
3
partyrockerdj 5 days ago +3
At some level you could, but eventually you’ll need to get a feel for a person’s personality to see if they’ll fit with the team. I’ve also seen videos of people using AI to feed them answers during remote interviews, so it’d be even harder to vet for applicants that are actually qualified.
3
didnotbuyWinRar 5 days ago +253
Oof, one of the final interview panelists described her as "a bit green overall." This one may have some teeth to it that it was decided on race/gender.
253
BlueAndYellowTowels 5 days ago +114
This might be a controversial take (it’s really not), but when hiring people it’s not always, strictly, about experience or qualifications. Sometimes you’re looking for intangibles that really matter. You might have two applicants. A veteran and a newbie. The veteran might have all the experience but be very stern and difficult to work with and rigid when it comes to new ideas. The newbie, less experienced. But very easy to work with, a team player, and is always open to new approaches. Depending on the team, the manager, the organization and industry… you might opt for the newbie over the veteran. But when hiring, there’s a lot more at play than experience and qualifications. Often soft skills and intangibles are extremely important.
114
CommanderDataisGod 5 days ago +57
I've heard plenty of times, they don't want someone with 'experience' for effectively that reason. They come in with a big head and start making decisions that they have no place making because they did it a certain way somewhere else. A newer, less experienced person is going to at least ask, consult, reach out, and when told to do XYZ, defer to the judgement of others. This is the problem with guys with 'too much experience'. That sounds like an oxymoron, but there is a lot of truth to it. You can't tell them anything because they 'know everything'.
57
canthearyouwhat 5 days ago +15
A friend of mine works HR told me something similar; if you have a team that is cohesive and functioning well: you hire a newbie to run it because they're moldable and you likely want them to be modeled off that team as a long term asset. If the team is the opposite, then you get someone with experience (preferably someone dealing with troublesome teams) to get them in shape. I've seen so many coworkers get upset where they have plenty of experience but wouldn't benefit the team or themselves due to how well oiled the team is and I've seen newbies get upset they get passed over on running teams that will eat them alive.
15
unstoppable_zombie 5 days ago +7
I used to work on a very senior, highly technical team. It was one of about 100 teams globally that all did similar work, just on different technologies, networking, wireless, security, etc. The team had the highest KPI measurements globally year after year due to having a stable tech stack, low turn over, and an over qualified lead that really liked his job (he is still there a decade later) The team had a revolving door of first time managers (every 18-24, months) because they used the team to train new managers. It gave them a soft landing with a very low chance of disaster while they were figuring the role out. It also meant there we very few expectations from the managers about how the team should do thier job.  Next time a manager position opened, they'd move that one a put another newbie over the senior team.
7
Initial_Energy5249 4 days ago +2
If they’re over 40 that can just be cover for age discrimination.
2
Perezvon42 5 days ago +26
It's hard to tell for sure. It's possible that race and gender were factors in the decision, and that quote will probably feature prominently in the plaintiff's case in the courtroom, but it's also possible the NYT saw the chosen candidate as someone with exceptional growth potential and long-term upside for reasons unrelated to race or gender. It's understandable that an organization might choose such a candidate over the plaintiff if they saw the plaintiff as a sort of high-floor but low-ceiling candidate.
26
heidismiles 5 days ago +84
Because nobody has ever promoted anyone who's "a bit green" for the role?
84
grumble11 5 days ago +146
Anyone who works in progressive corporations knows that DEI plays a material role in the hiring and promotion process. I’ve been pushed that way myself when making hiring decisions
146
[deleted] 5 days ago +70
[deleted]
70
Druidshift 5 days ago +46
I however, CAN'T point to any examples, because when I have seen my company try to diversify their management team, they look at ONLY qualified applicants, and then they might choose a minority because they want that view point, a view point not currently represented on the team. They don't go out into the streets and say "Any jews here! we haven't hit our Jew quota! no experience needed!!!" Which is frankly how fox news and these people try to frame DEI. Remember when their hero Charlie Kirk said he wouldn't fly on a plane where a black person was a pilot, because they obviously are a DEI hire and don't know how to fly an airplane. Black people aren't smart enough for that, after all. It is hilarious what they consider DEI to be. They wouldn't blink an eye at a company hiring someone that comes from a certain family and belongs to a certain country club. If that person belongs to a country club and can bring in a lot of business from the country club, then they would say "Hey, he brought something to the table that no one else did!". Never mind that historically country clubs only allowed Straight, white men. That's not DEI, that's just the way business works. But...if a company wants to sell shoes to black kids, and they hire a black sales manager because he understands that community....then that's DEI! that's evil! It's almost like their definition of DEI is "anytime Straight white men don't have an upper hand and advantage in every imaginable situation in life".
46
NamelessCabbage 5 days ago +8
I agree. To add, in my own experience, I’ve worked with people from all kinds of backgrounds over the last 20 years and haven’t found race or ethnicity to predict whether someone is good to work with or not. What stands out to me more is how often other people unnecessarily bring up someone’s race, ethnicity, or cultural background when describing workplace conflicts or frustrations. It’s strange hearing people claim racism is basically gone while still framing others through race first in everyday conversation. In many cases, I’ve encountered more racial undertones in how people talk about coworkers than in my actual interactions with those coworkers themselves.
8
BradPittbodydouble 5 days ago +6
If you let it, which definitely isn't the norm in any HR I've worked in.
6
RaisuCaku 5 days ago +56
Anyone who works in corporations know that being your average white dude plays a material role too, only difference is it not getting mentioned in company policy goals
56
Dottsterisk 5 days ago +15
Name and shame, then. What company and what did they say/do?
15
Tuesday_6PM 5 days ago +15
Let’s ignore all the times when being a white man played a material role in hiring and promotion (see, for example, “fitting the company culture” in many places that are predominantly white and male)
15
alexios_kk 5 days ago +61
You can’t discriminate against this guy because you think someone somewhere else was discriminated against
61
Dottsterisk 5 days ago +16
Described *who* as a bit green? And do we know that this person didn’t stand out in other ways that made up for lack of experience?
16
laowildin 5 days ago +41
Or that it wasn't the very common tactic of downplaying a woman's experience and knowledge just because. I swear some workplaces act like they are pulling teeth to acknowledge women's contributions
41
Beneficial_Piglet_33 5 days ago +14
I mean, isn't this the whole point of the lawsuit.... Do you understand how lawsuits work? Now there's a discovery phase to be done.
14
Cinematry 5 days ago +7
Described the person who got the promotion….how is that not self-evident?
7
saintandrewsfall 5 days ago +5
Except the one thing that no one talks about when it comes to using race, gender, and even experience as a *part* of hiring, is diversity can have its benefits too. Imagine having no women on the board of directors or in r&d at a bra company.
5
Absurdity_ 5 days ago +45
Diversity isn’t the benefit in your example. Bra knowledge is. Think about it in reverse. Imagine having no men in R&D at a bra company. Is the lack of diversity still a problem??
45
spewwwintothis 4 days ago +3
Yes. Having a broad set of viewpoints will almost always lead to more creativity, more unique perspectives, and more positive outcomes overall. Diversity is a good thing.
3
Absurdity_ 4 days ago +6
Well you just said two different things. . 1. Having people with many different viewpoints is a good thing 2. Diversity is a good thing . These are different claims! . You can have a group entirely made up of white men who hold wildly different views from each other. No “diversity” but still a lot of creativity.
6
Milskidasith 5 days ago +20
> Is the lack of diversity still a problem?? Obviously yes, because even in this contrived example "men who buy bras for women as a gift/women who buy bras to appeal to men" are relevant demographics you may want to appeal to. More broadly, the sort of "unknown unknowns" are places where a diversity of experience can be valuable because you can expand your market or avoid issues.
20
Imaginary-Royal-4735 5 days ago +23
Diversity absolutely is the benefit. Bra knowledge may be a part of it but hypothetically speaking you could have men on the board who are all more knowledgeable about Bras and Bra R&D then most women. But if you only had men on board, you would certainly miss out from the benefit of having someone with the lived experience of being a woman.
23
AZInfamous 5 days ago +8
Obviosly not the case in this situtation. and I would imagine that the NYT makes a terrible bra. [https://www.nytco.com/investors/board-of-directors/](https://www.nytco.com/investors/board-of-directors/) [https://www.nytco.com/people/](https://www.nytco.com/people/)
8
No_Issue2334 5 days ago +60
Am I supposed act like corporations don't make hires based on implied diversity quotas
60
Beautiful-Cup4161 5 days ago +65
I know it's uncomfortable for my own side, but I had a friend who couldn't move to a new position in the company until they backfilled theirs and they simultaneously had a diversity quota so basically they were stuck in their position until the company found someone non-white to fill it. The hiring manager was pretty blatant in telling them this. And my friend was frustrated seeing all of the white applicants who were qualified get turned down because this friend wanted out of the role ASAP. It's possible the pendulum can swing too far if we let it. Though I know it's hard to swallow because I would never have believed it was actually happening until it happened to my friend. It is absolutely possible that in the pursuit of good, a company could be overzealous and let it swing too far into being discriminatory yet again. Almost all of our beliefs can be bad if pushed farther than their reasonable application and we should always be fighting for that reasonable application so that the extremists don't poison a good thing.
65
FrogsFloatToo 4 days ago +22
Serious question... Why is race even on job applications...
22
TintedApostle 4 days ago +4
It is optional in most cases
4
_RyanLarkin 4 days ago +6
Research indicates that companies with diverse leadership teams are 39% more likely to outperform their peers, as reported in one study done by McKinsey. Additionally, diverse teams tend to foster innovation, better decision-making, and higher employee satisfaction, contributing to overall business success. This has been show to be true in multiple studies that can easily be found online.
6
jockfist5000 5 days ago +104
As a middle aged white man, the number of times I have heard people I work for explicitly say “they’re looking to hire more woman” or “boost diversity numbers” is pretty wild. I support the intention but I’m also aware it absolutely means they aren’t looking at people like me as candidates, which is pretty fucked up too.
104
hill-o 5 days ago +80
I mean if we’re doing solely anecdotal evidence, I can say as a woman that the number of times I’ve seen a less qualified man in my field promoted over a woman because he’s just “a better cultural fit” with the other men is also pretty high. It goes both ways, unfortunately. 
80
Ruthrfurd-the-stoned 4 days ago +9
100% and it’s your example that leads to the other. What this all culminates to is all of us peons below the decision making level are just rolling the dice for whether we get fucked over or not
9
seiryuu-abi 5 days ago +16
This is why my woman friend left tech. I know people make fun of the women in stem events and everything but the culture is atrocious towards women outside of fields like healthcare. Never realized how bad tech was for women. She wasn’t in California at all btw according to the people who will say that it’s only Bay Area culture. It’s not it’s everywhere in tech.
16
CumOnEileen69420 5 days ago +24
Or it means instead of only going to the main STEM job fair for new hires, they also go to the Women In STEM job fair. Wanting to hire more women can also look like “How do we get more qualified applicants who are women” and not “We shouldn’t hire the white dude over the black woman”.
24
ElEskeletoFantasma 5 days ago +19
As a man of color in tech I have seen way too many white dudes fail upwards to care about the occasional minority getting a leg up
19
statslady23 5 days ago +131
Fair's fair. I know a guy who did that and got a big settlement back in the 90s. You can't discriminate based on race and gender in hiring or promotions. 
131
TheSuperMarket 4 days ago +26
It's funny how everyone's opinion changes when it's a white male. Lol
26
matunos 5 days ago +15
This guy's side business of selling AI-generated art and music (with invalid copyright claims) might be only a salacious tidbit except that in one of his AI-generated album covers he cites a made-up New York Times blurb praising his fake band: https://bsky.app/profile/gillianbrockell.com/post/3ml55pgeues25
15
psycospaz 5 days ago +13
Not speaking for this particular instance, since what little I have seen about it doesn't seem to be discrimination, but anyone who says that diversity pushes are not going to lead to discrimination is overestimating humanity. Everything from laziness to greed ends up pushing quotas and screwing things. Its a good thing to have diversity but unfortunately I've seen first hand what it can lead to.
13
[deleted] 5 days ago +96
[removed]
96
Silly_Maintenance399 5 days ago +11
The EEOC claimed this, but it hasn't been proven here.
11
itsajaguar 5 days ago +36
Maybe I’m missing something. Unless you think women and non-white men are automatically less qualified than white men how does that quote demonstrate them openly supporting discrimination?
36
tehfireisonfire 5 days ago +68
No one is saying that they are more or less qualified. But this lawsuit is saying that they simply didn't take the white guy into account because he was white, not because he wasn't qualified.
68
BradPittbodydouble 5 days ago +35
"A federal civil rights agency filed a discrimination lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times, claiming that the new organization passed over a white male employee for a promotion in favor of a lesser qualified woman to meet its diversity goals."
35
pingo5 5 days ago +5
sure, but there's ways to work on increasing diversity that don't fall into discrimination cases. He's going to need more than that
5
BradPittbodydouble 5 days ago +17
So four people moved ahead instead of him, and they're ALL definitely less qualified or is it someone grasping at straws. What is it with 5th place grievances thinking they should be first?
17
_goblinette_ 5 days ago +2
>The organization openly supported discrimination The organization *is already overwhelmingly white and male at the leadership level*.  Their target customer base is “everyone” so it’s a legitimate and sensible business move to try to fill out your leadership team with people who understand how to appeal to people who aren’t white and male.  >Just look at the comments and replace white with black That comparison would only make sense if the current leadership team was primarily black and/or female. Which it is not. 
2
JustLTU 5 days ago +51
> The organization is already overwhelmingly white and male at the leadership level No it isn't? https://www.nytco.com/investors/board-of-directors/
51
corran132 5 days ago +39
Or, and here me out here, maybe something in the interview progress made the people making the decision understand that the plaintiff is the sort of person who will go nuclear over failing to get a promotion and draw the company into a massive lawsuit, and as such his temperament was not judged appropriate for the role.
39
NaClMiner 5 days ago +53
You could make this exact same argument if it were a black woman filing the lawsuit.
53
Perfect-Parking-5869 5 days ago +10
People already think EEOC claims are bogus. Maybe this dude’s claim is bogus but using filing as proof the company didn’t discriminate would be an awful way to approach these cases. Maybe he was abrasive in the interview but that shouldn’t be viewed in conjunction with filing a claim. Despite this administration, the Civil Rights Act is still pretty cool overall and this is the same logic that gets used toward whistle blowers from PR firms. “They just had an axe to grind.”
10
SweetRoll789 5 days ago +66
Is the claim really that unbelievable? I suppose the lawsuit will reveal that.
66
[deleted] 5 days ago +51
[removed]
51
AceMcVeer 5 days ago +17
Why are you assuming he's unqualified?
17
[deleted] 5 days ago +16
[removed]
16
Brilliant_Oil5261 5 days ago +12
Race-based hiring is a thing that happens especially as DEI programs started to more heavily push for forced diversity. If a company is equally split between race and gender, it's guaranteed that race-based hiring (aka discrimination) is happening because the applicant pool is typically not equally split. Like I worked at a software company where the applicant pool was like 90% white/asian dudes, and the company was almost perfectly split between both gender and racial lines. That's entirely the result of racial and gender discrimination.
12
SomeUTAUguy 5 days ago +2
I hope new york times has their ducks in a row because i remember Starbucks got sued/is being sued for something similar. 
2
tehfireisonfire 5 days ago +28
It sucks that this is probably what happened. There is a real good chance that he was passed over simply because he was white/male. And then nobody (like seemingly a lot of this sub) takes the claim seriously because he's a white male.
28
BlumbleBee123B 5 days ago +28
As a white man who was treated much worse by his former employer, this is interesting.
28
Toomanyeastereggs 4 days ago +4
Nothing like having all your foibles and personal idiosyncrasies dragged out in a highly publicised court case as to why you were not promoted for a job you probably couldn’t do anyway. Oh and the best bit (aside from the other side being a f****** media giant) is that you can’t stop the case when it invariably turns into a shitshow because you have no say in it. Really can’t see how any of this can possibly go wrong.
4
Captain_Aware4503 5 days ago +5
Quick question, how many white men were promoted simply because they were friends with someone or related to someone despite being less qualified?
5
meteoritegallery 4 days ago +13
That's an excuse to perpetuate bigotry ~as retribution. Not equality.
13
← Back to Board