Wanting diversity isn't discrimination. Don't let a lawsuit convince you otherwise.
The EEOC just sued the New York Times for “DEI-related race and sex discrimination.”
Sounds serious. Until you actually read the complaint.
Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC Commissioner, asked colleagues to read it.
So I did. And I want you to read it too — not because the lawsuit is sound, but because the way it’s being framed in the press is going to scare a lot of leaders into doing the wrong thing. And I’d rather you see the sleight of hand for yourself.
Here’s the short version: On May 5, 2026, the EEOC sued the New York Times alleging that the paper failed to promote a White male senior staff editor to a Deputy Real Estate Editor position because of his race and sex, in violation of Title VII. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas declared, “There is no diversity exception” to federal civil rights law.
She’s right about that. There isn’t. There never was.
And that’s exactly why this complaint is so frustrating to read.
Lead With Inclusion
Allegations 16 through 28 of the complaint describe — in considerable detail — the actions the New York Times took to increase diversity in its workforce and leadership. Things like:
Publishing demographic data
Setting aspirational guidelines for representation
Codifying and tracking those metrics across departments
Sharing internal data so managers could see where their teams stood
Tying inclusion expectations into leadership assessments
Requiring a broad slate of qualified candidates for every open role
Encouraging leaders to be intentional about how they foster inclusion
Read that list again. Every single item on it is legal under Title VII. More than legal — it is exactly what employers committed to equal opportunity should be doing. Creating guidelines is not the same as making decisions. Caring about the composition of your candidate pool is not the same as making a hire on the basis of race or sex. Telling a hiring manager that diversity matters is not the same as telling them whom to hire.
Then comes allegation #29, and the EEOC pivots: “Accordingly, [these actions] detailed NYT’s express efforts to make employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals.”
Accordingly?
There is no “accordingly” in that sentence. The first 28 allegations describe legal conduct. The leap to “therefore the NYT made decisions on the basis of race and sex” is an assertion, not a conclusion. And nothing in the rest of the complaint actually closes that gap. The complaint hinges on the idea that wanting diversity must mean engineering it through illegal means — that the only way an organization could achieve representation goals is to break the law to get there.
A former EEOC commissioner reading the same complaint reportedly said: “They’re putting out their best facts in this complaint, and the facts are pathetic.”
That is not a defense of the New York Times’ specific hiring decision. The court will sort that out. The selected candidate may or may not have been the best fit for that role; reasonable people can review a hiring file and reach different conclusions. That’s what discovery is for.
What I’m interested in is what you take away from the headlines. Because here’s the part that should worry every leader watching this unfold from the sidelines: the chilling effect.
Be An Inclusive Leader
If you are a leader right now, you are watching your peers retreat. You’re watching companies quietly scrub guidelines from their websites. You’re watching managers who used to say “we want a broad candidate pool for this role” suddenly fall silent. You’re watching legal departments deliver guidance that goes well beyond what the law actually requires — because nobody wants to be the next defendant on a press release.
That retreat is the point. The lawsuit doesn’t have to win to do its work.
So let me be very clear about what is still legal — and still expected — of you as a leader:
You are allowed to want a diverse workforce. Loudly. Publicly. In writing.
You are allowed to set aspirational metrics for representation across your organization.
You are allowed to require a broad slate of qualified candidates for every open role.
You are allowed to require diverse interview panels.
You are allowed to recruit from sources that reach a wider range of candidates — HBCUs, professional associations, affinity job boards, the National Association of Black Journalists, the Hispanic IT Executive Council. All of it.
You are allowed to hold your leaders accountable for inclusive processes — for whether they ran a fair search, posted the role widely, interviewed a real slate, and used consistent evaluation criteria.
You are allowed to share internal demographic data with your managers so they understand where their teams stand.
You are allowed to tie inclusion expectations to performance reviews.
What you cannot do — and what the law has always prohibited — is make the actual hiring or promotion decision because of someone’s race or sex. You can’t tell a hiring manager “this role goes to a woman of color.” You can’t lower a qualification bar for one demographic group and not another. You can’t predetermine an outcome and then run a sham process to justify it.
That line has always existed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 drew it. The courts have spent sixty years refining it. Nothing about EEOC v. NYT changes where that line is.
What’s changed is the pressure on leaders to mistake the line for something it isn’t.
This is where the Leadership Reality Check matters. Three of its five dimensions speak directly to this moment:
Communication Transparency — When your team asks where you stand on inclusion, can you give them a clear answer? Or are you hedging, softening, going quiet, hoping the question doesn’t come up at the next all-hands?
Inclusion and Fairness — Have your processes actually changed in the last six months? Or have you only changed the language you use to describe them? (One of those is a values shift. The other is a vocabulary shift dressed up as one.)
Accountability Consistency — Are the standards you’re applying to inclusion work the same standards you apply to every other strategic priority? Or are you suddenly demanding a level of legal certainty for inclusion that you’d never demand for sales targets, product roadmaps, or quarterly forecasts?
If you find yourself walking back commitments not because the law changed, but because the headlines got uncomfortable — that’s a leadership signal. And your team is reading it.
Take Action
Here is the question I want every leader sitting with this week:
If you scrubbed your guidelines for inclusion from your website tomorrow, would your hiring outcomes actually change? Or would your processes continue to do exactly what they’ve always done — just with less accountability and less transparency?
If the answer is “outcomes wouldn’t change,” then your goals were never the problem. Your transparency was the only thing at risk. Removing it doesn’t make you less liable. It makes you less honest.
If the answer is “outcomes would change,” then it’s worth asking what you were actually doing. Were they shaping process — broader slates, fairer panels, consistent criteria? That’s legal. Or were they shaping decisions — predetermined outcomes, identity-based selections? That’s not. And your retreat won’t fix that. Only redesigning your process will.
Either way, the work doesn’t go away. It just gets harder to see. And harder to hold yourself accountable to.
Take five minutes and run your Leadership Reality Check. It will tell you where the gap is between how you see your leadership in this moment and how your team is experiencing it. Because in a season when so many leaders are quietly recalibrating, the leaders who keep their compass — and can prove it — are the ones who will hold their teams together.
The EEOC didn’t change what the law allows. Don’t let an ill-conceived lawsuit convince you otherwise. And don’t let the chilling effect do for the lawsuit what the lawsuit can’t do for itself.
Thank goodness for every employer still holding true to their values, to their commitment to equal employment opportunity, and to their correct understanding of Title VII. If that’s you, keep going. The work matters now more than ever.
One More Way to Take Action
The Forum on Workplace Inclusion is once again convening in Minneapolis May 27-28th and we’re utilizing this opportunity to shape the future of inclusion and equity in our workplaces. If you’d like to contribute by joining a think tank of practitioners committed to advancing the field of workplace inclusion — developing a unified definition of DEIBA, establishing a credible body practitioners can align to, and building research-backed metrics that connect inclusion practices to organizational outcomes, join us in Minneapolis to learn more. Can’t be there in person, then reach out to me and let’s see what we can do.
About Stacey Gordon:
Stacey Gordon is a Global Talent Advisor, Bias Disrupter and an unapologetic evangelist for inclusion. As the Founder of Rework Work, she works with leaders to anchor decisions in action based in three guiding fundamental management principles, while facilitating mindset shifts. She is a global keynote speaker, Top Voice on LinkedIn and a popular LinkedIn Learning [IN]structor reaching nearly two million unique learners who enjoy her courses. Want to work with Stacey live? Consider booking her for your next strategy mastermind session, conference keynote, leadership development meeting or consulting engagement.
