A group of current and former employees of Gannet are suing the media giant, saying they were fired or lost out on promotions to make way for less qualified women and minorities.
The five executives say they have suffered from the company’s diversity hiring policy, which was introduced in 2020 to make newsrooms more like the communities they served within five years.
It is the latest in a series of lawsuits and actions against “reverse racism” in corporate America.
“Gannett conducted his reverse racial discrimination policy with a callous indifference to the civil rights laws or the well-being of the employees, and of prospective employees, whose lives would be turned upside down,” the lawsuit said.
Gannett publishes hundreds of newspapers of all sizes across the country, including USA Today
Steven Bradley and Barbara Augsdorfer say they are victims of a diversity hiring policy
The papers have been filed in federal court in Virginia, where Gannett is headquartered.
The approximately $4 billion company owns hundreds of newspapers of all sizes across the country, including its flagship title USA Today.
The employees are demanding a jury trial, an ‘immediate end’ to the diversity policy and damages.
They accuse the company of violating federal law through racial discrimination in its hiring.
Gannett says it offers opportunities to everyone and hires and promotes based on merit.
“Gannett always strives to recruit and retain the most qualified individuals for all positions within the company,” legal counsel Polly Grunfeld Sack said in a statement.
“We will vigorously defend our practice of ensuring equal opportunity for all our valued employees against this worthless lawsuit.”
The contributors are Steven Bradley, Stephen Crane, Noah Hiles, Barbara Augsdorfer and Logan Barry.
Bradley was a sports editor at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle until he was fired last year after 37 years there.
He was fired and ineligible for a new position because he is white, the prosecutor alleges.
He filed a similar lawsuit against Gannett in New York state court in April.
Another plaintiff, Barry, says he was eligible for promotion to an executive position at the Progress-Index in Petersburg, Virginia.
After Gannett took over the newspaper in 2019, the job went to a black woman with fewer qualifications, the lawsuit said.
Augsdorfer, meanwhile, says she has stepped aside from her job as an education and nonprofit reporter at Savannah Morning News.
Managers made room for black employees, court documents show.
She was later fired after a poor performance review.
Unlike in some other cases, the lawsuit is brought by the affected employees themselves.
The 20-page complaint references the Supreme Court’s decision in June to declare that considering a student’s race for college admission was unconstitutional.
Since that decision on affirmative action in higher education, conservative activists and politicians have sought ways to ban diversity programs in the private sector.
A group formed by legal campaigner Edward Blum, who led the Supreme Court case, this week filed lawsuits against two major US law firms over scholarships they offer to minorities and LGBT people.
Gannett newspapers, including the Austin American-Statesman, have been the scene of recent protests over wages and wages
Starbucks, Target and Progressive Insurance are among the major companies that have faced lawsuits challenging diversity programs.
A group founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller has filed more than a dozen complaints with a federal anti-bias agency accusing companies of discriminating against white and male employees.
Republican officials have written to law firms and major corporations, warning them of pursuing illegal racial quotas in their so-called “diversity, equality, and inclusiveness” (DEI) hiring and promotion programs.
For some, diversity programs are important and necessary because they can help overcome historical racism and sexism and make it easier for people of all backgrounds to advance in education and work.
However, critics say it is a form of reverse racism that unfairly hits back at white men.
Others still say they may have good intentions, but rarely achieve the desired results and often make matters worse by creating divisions in offices and classrooms.