A federal district court in Virginia has dismissed allegations by five former Gannett journalists, who claimed that the media company’s diversity policy led to their terminations or other adverse actions because they are White. The court ruled that the diversity policy alone did not establish disparate treatment and that the journalists failed to plausibly show that their race was the reason for losing a legally protected right. The journalists had sued under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits race discrimination in contracts. Although they had amended their complaint once, they were given 30 days to make a final amendment.
The case follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision in *Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College*, which invalidated race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. This ruling has intensified scrutiny of workplace diversity initiatives. The Gannett case, filed shortly after the SFFA decision, is among the first to be dismissed on its merits.
Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. clarified that the mere existence of a diversity policy is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. He emphasized that a goal of increasing diversity is considered legitimate and lawful. Although the SFFA decision does not directly address employment, it aligns with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination. Employers should be prepared for claims of “reverse discrimination” and avoid making employment decisions based on race or other protected categories.
Gannett’s policy aimed at achieving racial and gender parity was not included in the journalists’ complaint but was mentioned in an “Inclusion Report.” Judge Alston found the report to be vague and aspirational, lacking specific plans, quotas, or a caste system favoring certain racial groups. The report emphasized fair treatment and equal opportunities for all employees.