EEOC Lawyer in NYT Suit, Men’s Discrimination Fight

A new EEOC lawsuit accuses The New York Times of discrimination against a white man, while critics say the case misuses limited resources.

A federal employment discrimination lawsuit targeting The New York Times has thrust the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s latest legal strategy into the spotlight, raising fresh questions about how far the agency will go in challenging diversity programs.

The EEOC. created as a landmark achievement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and charged with protecting workers from employment discrimination. has sued the New York Times on behalf of a white man.. The complaint alleges the newspaper discriminated against him based on both race and sex. and it follows a high-profile push by the Trump administration to curb diversity. equity and inclusion policies through the agency.

The lawsuit bears signatures from the EEOC’s acting leadership. including its acting general counsel and deputy general counsel. and also from Benjamin North. who was reported earlier this year as assistant general counsel.. That legal involvement connects the case to North’s own record of challenging gender-related policies. an angle now being scrutinized by civil-rights advocates.

North previously was suspended as a college student over a rape allegation, which he said violated his civil rights.. He has consistently denied the allegations.. In later legal work. North argued that Title IX—which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education—can be used in ways that undermine the rights of men. according to reporting cited in the lawsuit coverage.

Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC commissioner, said North’s role is significant because it could indicate he helped shape the complaint. When asked about North’s involvement, an EEOC spokesperson directed attention to the filed complaint rather than providing additional detail.

The EEOC lawsuit, filed Tuesday, was brought for an unnamed plaintiff whose identity had been speculated about.. The claim centers on a hiring decision for a deputy real estate editor position, with the man applying in January 2025.. The complaint alleges that although he met the stated requirements. he was passed over because he did not “match the race and/or sex characteristics” the company sought to increase in leadership.

According to the lawsuit, the job instead went to a multiracial female candidate who the plaintiff alleges was not qualified.. Feldblum. however. challenged the core premise of the EEOC argument. saying there is “no actual evidence” that the plaintiff was more qualified than the person selected.. She added that leadership hiring is rarely a simple comparison and can involve many factors. with any legal claim hinging on what the evidence actually shows.

At the heart of the dispute is the EEOC’s contention that the Times used race and sex as decision-making criteria to meet internal demographic targets tied to its diversity efforts.. The agency’s complaint alleges that the newsroom engaged in unlawful employment practices dating back to at least October 2024. pointing to the company’s self-published diversity goals. including a 2021 plan that set an objective to increase Black and Latino leadership by 50 percent within four years.

The EEOC asserts that the Times made employment decisions “on the basis of race and sex” to reach those goals. and it argues that increasing the proportion of non-White leaders necessarily meant a reduction in the proportion of White leaders.. Feldblum. though. said such reasoning is not enough legally. describing the EEOC’s position as requiring proof that hiring decisions were expressly and intentionally based on those protected characteristics.

For Feldblum. diversity efforts can be lawful when they are designed to widen the pool of applicants without excluding qualified people.. She said there is nothing inherently illegal about the kinds of steps the agency described. even if an employer tries to improve representation.. Her view was that including diverse candidate groups can comply with federal law. provided the process does not discriminate against qualified white employees or qualified men.

The New York Times rejected the lawsuit as politically motivated.. In a statement, the paper said it follows merit-based employment practices and rejected the EEOC’s framing.. The Times also argued that the agency departed from standard procedures in ways it called highly unusual. emphasizing that the allegation centers on a single personnel decision among more than 100 deputy-level positions across the newsroom. while the filing makes broader claims that the paper says ignore the facts to serve a predetermined narrative.

While the case focuses on one hiring choice. it is also being portrayed as part of a broader national strategy tied to the administration’s approach to DEI.. The complaint comes after EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. the Times reported. solicited complaints from white men claiming they were discriminated against based on race and/or sex.. The report also described instructions to prioritize cases aligned with Lucas’s stated priorities. including efforts to root out DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and to accelerate claims presented as “reverse racism.”

Critics argue that the agency’s approach is not only legally risky but also operationally costly.. Feldblum characterized the lawsuit as an inappropriate use of EEOC resources. noting that the agency’s staffing is currently at its lowest level in decades.. Under that view, focusing on one issue can mean neglecting other matters where claims may be more clearly grounded.

A key internal counterpoint comes from the EEOC’s leadership politics as well.. Kalpana Kotagal. the sole Democratic commissioner after Trump fired the others pursuant to the statute governing the agency. said she voted against authorizing the lawsuit against the Times.. Kotagal said she disagreed with the substance of the case and believed it was not a good use of scarce resources.

Kotagal also suggested that a commitment to DEIA, standing alone, is not proof of discrimination. She said her vote reflected that distinction, implying that discrimination must be shown through evidence of unlawful decision-making rather than inferred from diversity goals.

In a remark attributed to a Times reporter. the complaint’s theory was met with a pointed response: there are many white men at the top of the organization.. That claim was used to argue that representation at senior levels undercuts the notion that discrimination is the driving explanation for the challenged decision.

Still, the legal fight is likely to turn on what the EEOC can demonstrate about intent and process.. Feldblum said even if the Times required diverse candidate pools. it could still comply with the law when the hiring method is structured so it does not remove any qualified white or male candidate from consideration.

The broader political undertone is difficult to ignore. The EEOC’s litigation is being watched not just as a dispute over a single job decision, but as a test of whether the agency’s current enforcement posture will treat diversity policies as presumptive evidence of unlawful bias.

If the courts accept the EEOC’s characterization of the hiring process. it could reshape how employers document and defend diversity initiatives. particularly where demographic targets are publicly stated.. If the courts reject the agency’s evidence-based claims. the case may become another example of how difficult it can be to prove discrimination when the employer presents hiring decisions as rooted in qualifications and when the challenger must show intentional reliance on race and sex.

The EEOC lawsuit also lands in the middle of a long-running national debate about civil-rights enforcement and the meaning of “reverse discrimination” claims.. North’s history—both his denial of the campus allegations that led to his suspension and his later arguments regarding gender-based protections—adds personal stakes to a case that now sits at the intersection of employment law. education policy disputes. and the current federal pushback against DEI.

The storyline has continued to evolve since it was first published, including a correction dated May 6, 2026. The correction clarified that Feldblum is a former commissioner, and it corrected an earlier reference to the statute establishing the EEOC to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

EEOC lawsuit New York Times hiring race and sex discrimination DEI policies Benjamin North reverse discrimination