Plaintiffs brought a class action challenge to Defendant’s policy that set a diversity target and tied executive bonuses and promotions to meeting diversity goals.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant (Gannett) created “racial quotas” and gave “preferential treatment to minority workers” in hiring, promotions, salary, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Gannett filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that their policy sets "aspirational" demographic goals rather than illegal quotas or preferential treatment. Gannett argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are nothing but speculation, lacking any specific facts to support that decisions related to the hiring, promotions, and salary were made because of race. Moreover, they argue that the actions Plaintiffs claim occurred, such as receiving a poor performance evaluation, were not grounds for legal action in this case, because they did not adversely affect the Plaintiffs' terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

On August 20, 2024, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint, agreeing with Gannett that Plaintiffs failed to provide specific facts showing they experienced adverse employment actions due to their race. However, the court granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, allowing them another chance to present facts that support their claims.

Importantly, the court rejected the notion that Gannett's policy was itself racially discriminatory. Although the policy aspired to "achieve racial and gender parity with the diversity of our nation, throughout our workforce" and to hold leadership accountable during an "annual goal setting process," these statements were aspirational in nature and did not establish any disparate treatment.

On October 3, 2024, Gannett filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that their amended complaint provided enough facts to show that Gannett's policy was discriminatory and led to negative employment actions against the Plaintiffs because of their races. They also pointed to the recent case Duvall v. Novant Health, where similar claims were made against Novant Health, and argued that this meant the court should deny Gannett’s motion to dismiss.