Curious procedure in 7 points White man not promoted - Trump administration sues New York Times

The Trump administration is toughening its stance against diversity programs and suing the New York Times. At the center is a controversial promotion. The consequences could go far beyond the individual case.

The renowned US newspaper New York Times is facing an explosive lawsuit: The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is accusing the newspaper of deliberately discriminating against a white male employee.

Specifically, it is about the filling of a management position in 2025 - the position of deputy editorial director in the real estate department. The journalist in question, who has worked at the newspaper for over a decade, had applied for the position but did not make it to the final selection round.

Instead, four other candidates were shortlisted: A white woman, a black man, an Asian woman and a woman from a multicultural background - the latter ultimately got the job. The EEOC does not attribute this decision to performance, but rather as an indication that diversity considerations may have played a decisive role.

Essentially, the EEOC - on behalf of the man who was overlooked - is accusing the newspaper of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This key US law prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of gender, skin color or origin.

The authority argues that the New York Times has pursued targeted programs and goals over the years to increase the proportion of women as well as black and Hispanic employees. While such initiatives are not illegal in themselves, it becomes problematic when they influence specific personnel decisions.

According to the statement of claim, this is exactly what happened in this case. Internal documents and messages as well as diversity reports are said to indicate that the composition of the workforce was at least considered in the decision-making process.

The EEOC also alleges that the applicant who was passed over was even better qualified than the candidate who was ultimately selected. This assessment is based, among other things, on internal statements according to which the successful candidate was still "relatively inexperienced".

The newspaper firmly rejects the allegations - and speaks of a "politically motivated process by the EEOC under the Trump administration". A spokeswoman for the company emphasizes that only performance counts when making personnel decisions: "Our hiring practices are merit-based and designed to attract and develop the world's best talent."

The newspaper also contradicts the authority's claim that diversity goals were decisive: "Neither ethnicity nor gender played a role in this decision - we hired the most qualified candidate and she is an excellent editor."

In addition, the newspaper criticizes the EEOC's actions as disproportionate: "The accusation focuses on a single personnel decision in more than 100 comparable management positions," said the spokeswoman. Nevertheless, the EEOC is making sweeping accusations "that ignore the facts in order to support a preconceived narrative".

The case is being discussed in the USA as an example of so-called "reverse discrimination" - in other words, discrimination against members of a majority group. This debate is particularly popular in conservative circles.

The central question is: can programs to promote diversity themselves have a discriminatory effect?

The EEOC officially takes a clear stance: there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" as a separate category. Any discrimination based on gender or ethnicity is illegal per se - regardless of whether it affects minorities or majority members.

Critics of diversity programs feel vindicated by the case. They argue that quotas or targets inevitably lead to other applicants being disadvantaged.

Supporters, on the other hand, argue that such programs are necessary to correct inequalities that have developed over time. Individual personnel decisions must also always be seen in the overall context.

The complaint can hardly be viewed in isolation from the political environment. Under President Donald Trump, the direction of the Labor Department has changed significantly.

Trump has repeatedly and harshly criticized diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and early in his second term took steps to scale back such initiatives in the federal administration. His argument: such programs can themselves be discriminatory - especially against white men.

Trump's anti-diversity efforts are by no means limited to the economy: in February 2025, the US president signed a decree banning trans people from participating in women's sports. He also wants no trans women athletes to be admitted to the 2028 Olympic Games. A few weeks ago, the International Olympic Committee relented and is now planning mandatory gender tests for all female athletes.

The EEOC, headed by Trump supporter Andrea Lucas, is following this course. It has announced that it will increasingly pursue cases in which members of majority groups feel disadvantaged.

The case against the New York Times is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. The authority also investigated the sporting goods manufacturer Nike for possible discrimination against white employees. It also filed a lawsuit against a partner company of Coca-Cola, which is accused of unlawfully excluding men from an internal event.

At the same time, Trump himself has repeatedly engaged inlegal disputes with the media, including the New York Times. Critics see this as an attempt to exert pressure on reporting.

After an investigation lasting several months, the EEOC initially tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the newspaper. However, these talks - known as "conciliation" proceedings - failed.

The lawsuit was then filed in Manhattan. Among other things, the authority is demanding financial compensation for the affected employee, including lost wages, as well as possible fines.

In addition, the court is to prohibit the newspaper from making future personnel decisions that could be discriminatory on the basis of gender or ethnicity. A specific date for the hearing has not yet been set.

The case has the potential to have an impact far beyond the media industry. If the court rules in favour of the EEOC, diversity programmes in companies, universities and organizations in the USA could come under greater pressure.

At the same time, the dispute shows how highly politicized issues surrounding equality and diversity are. What some see as a necessary correction to structural inequalities is already considered discrimination by others.

The court's decision will therefore not only rule on a single promotion case, but could fundamentally influence how companies deal with diversity in the future.

Video from the department