The New York Times countersues EEOC, alleging ‘retaliatory, bad faith use of’ authority

Times Challenges EEOC in Counterclaim Over Alleged Political Retaliation

The New York Times countersues EEOC – The New York Times has initiated legal proceedings against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, arguing that the federal agency engaged in retaliatory conduct connected to the newspaper’s journalism. According to a filing submitted on Friday, the Times contends that the EEOC weaponized its authority through a discrimination lawsuit rooted in race and gender claims. This legal maneuver comes after the commission brought suit in May representing Bryant Rousseau, a White employee at the publication.

Rousseau asserted that the Times improperly denied him advancement to the position of deputy editor because of his racial and gender identity. In its response, the newspaper characterized the commission’s legal action as driven by political considerations rather than genuine concern for workplace equity. The Times emphasized that the timing of the EEOC’s lawsuit was particularly revealing, arriving just eight days after the newspaper published an investigation revealing that EEOC personnel felt compelled to prioritize discrimination cases aligning with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.

Following that initial report on the EEOC, the Times subsequently covered news that the commission was preparing to file litigation against the newspaper. The investigation ultimately concerned Rousseau’s employment situation. The EEOC formally sued the Times two days after that coverage appeared. In Friday’s counterclaim, the Times argues that the commission proceeded with litigation despite findings indicating “no evidence that race or sex was considered” during the hiring process in question.

“Despite pursuing an eight-month investigation of the Charge … the Commission tellingly does not (and could not) point to any evidence in its Complaint to show that Rousseau was discriminated against on the basis of his race or sex in connection with The Times’s hiring of a Real Estate Deputy Editor,” the Times’ attorneys write in the countersuit.

The newspaper further contends that the EEOC lacks independence from presidential influence. The countersuit states that the commission “was filed by a Commission that has expressly disavowed any independence from the President and is expressly committed to pursuing his agenda.” According to the Times’ legal team, this retaliatory approach constitutes a violation of constitutional protections and federal administrative law.

“The Commission’s retaliatory, bad faith use of its authority to target The Times violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’) and poses a uniquely insidious threat to a free and independent press, and to our democracy,” attorneys allege elsewhere in the lawsuit.

The EEOC chose not to provide comment on the matter, referencing the ongoing nature of the litigation. This dispute represents only one of several legal challenges the Times has faced under the current Trump administration. In September 2025, President Trump initiated a separate defamation action seeking $15 billion in damages, characterizing the newspaper as a “virtual mouthpiece” for Democratic interests. While a judge ultimately dismissed that particular lawsuit, the president was permitted to submit an amended version of his complaint.

Additionally, the Times pursued its own legal action against the Department of Defense in December, challenging limitations placed on journalists’ access to military facilities and operations. The countersuit emphasizes that the EEOC’s action targets a news organization that the president has consistently criticized for its journalistic practices.

Notably, the EEOC originally filed its complaint without naming Rousseau as the plaintiff. The employee subsequently joined the lawsuit in May. While the initial May filing sought Rousseau’s promotion to deputy editor, a June court document indicates that he had already departed from the organization. A Times spokesperson issued a statement in May affirming the publication’s position.

“Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world,” the Times said. “We will defend ourselves vigorously.”

The counterclaim includes multiple requests for relief, most notably seeking dismissal of the EEOC’s case with prejudice, meaning the matter cannot be refiled. The Times also seeks reimbursement for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred during the legal proceedings.