A federal judge has dismissed most of a lawsuit against Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the U.S., which claimed that the company’s diversity policies led to discrimination against white journalists. The judge rejected all class action claims, saying the plaintiffs did not provide enough proof that Gannett’s diversity efforts caused similar harm across its many outlets.
U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, based in Alexandria, Virginia, pointed out that the people suing the company had very different experiences, worked in different places, and were affected by different decision-makers. Because of this, he said they couldn’t be treated as a group in court. He also noted that the proposed class included many employees like HR, IT, and possibly janitors who had not faced any discrimination.
The lawsuit involves five former Gannett journalists who said they were fired, forced to quit, or passed over for promotions due to a 2020 policy. That policy aimed for Gannett’s newsrooms to reflect the racial makeup of the communities they serve by 2025. However, Gannett has said its Inclusion Report—used by the plaintiffs as evidence—did not set quotas or require specific diversity rules. Instead, it laid out goals the company hoped to reach.
Judge Alston dismissed four of the five plaintiffs but allowed one, Logan Barry, a former reporter in Virginia, to continue his claim. Barry said he was denied a promotion that went to a less qualified Black colleague.
Gannett declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. The suit was first filed in August 2023 in the Eastern District of Virginia under the case name Bradley et al v. Gannett Co.
This lawsuit comes amid wider political debates, with former President Donald Trump, a key figure in appointing Judge Alston, pushing against corporate diversity initiatives in his current campaign.
The case sheds light on the challenges companies face as they try to balance diversity goals with fair treatment for all employees. For now, most of the claims against Gannett have been dismissed, with only one plaintiff allowed to pursue his case further.