Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to promote the Charging Party, Bryant Rousseau, because he is white and male. Rousseau worked as an editor for the New York Times since 2014 and claimed he had no path for advancement despite qualifications. He claimed less qualified Black women were hired over him, which was consistent with Defendant's goal to increase the representation of Black women in leadership roles.

On May 15, 2026, Bryant Rousseau filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff and stated that he has a statutory right to intervene due to his charge of discrimination leading to this suit.

On June 3, 2026, the court granted Rousseau's motion to intervene.

On June 8, 2026, Rousseau filed an intervenor complaint against Defendant alleging that the New York Times has prioritized filling gaps in racial diversity amongst leadership and gaps in promotion among employees of color. Rousseau cites Defendant's Diversity and Inclusion Report and "A Call to Action: Building a Culture that Works for All of Us" to allege that Defendant publicly committed to referencing Black women when filling leadership roles. Plaintiff stated that Defendant set an explicit racial quota to "increase the representation of Black and Latino colleagues in leadership by 50 percent over the next five years".

On July 10, 2026, Defendants filed counter claims with their answer and defenses to Plaintiffs complaint. Defendants state that they selected a multiracial woman over Plaintiff because she was the most qualified candidate and had a compelling vision for the future of the newspaper. Plaintiff also asserted that the commission was unable to identify any evidence that they considered the selected candidate's race or sex in filling the position. Plaintiff stated that the commission learned that candidates of color of both sexes with more experience than Rousseau were also not advance during the hiring process. This contradicts their assertion that Rousseau's experience alone warranted his participation at the panel interview stage and that the decision not to advance him was race and sex based. Defendants filed First and Fifth Amendment counterclaims against the commission for retaliatory, bad faith use of its power against the newspaper.