Exposing Anti-White Harassment + Discrimination in US Media Companies
FAQs
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What are DieDEI.co goals?
•To educate Americans about recent and ongoing internal and public-facing, corporatized, anti-White Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI/DEIB/DEIBJ/D&I/CEI/DEIJ/DEIA/EDI/ED&I/EDI&A/IDEA/IED/ID&E/JEDI/DIB/Inclusion & Belonging, et al) practices in U.S. Advertising, Communications, Marketing, Media, HR/Hiring/Employment, and PR companies, trade organizations, and nonprofits
• To educate employees and job applicants on how they can seek legal redress if they’ve suffered human rights violations at work or while applying
• For all companies to adhere to state and federal laws around racial discrimination and harassment
• For all DEI initiatives to be sunset immediately
• For all DEI-related Officers and Advisors to be terminated immediately. This includes newly-changed titles with similar responsibilities by the same people including “Diversity Officers,” “Inclusion Officers,” “Impact Officers,” and the like
• For all owners and C-suite leaders who played a role in forming DEI corporate systems and philosophies to be relieved of duty/terminated immediately and held accountable for abetting any human rights violations. This includes CEOs
• For financial compensation to be provided to all Asian and White employees who have endured corporate racial harassment and discrimination
• To remove any and all DEI/DEIB/D&I criteria from ESG and CEI scoring, immediately, and to hold all institutional investors accountable for their use of ESG scores, which are heavily determined by DEI practices
• For public and private apologies to be made by CEOs, CCOs, CSOs and other C-suite level leaders to their workers (of all races), shareholders, clients, subsidiary agencies, partners, and customers (the public)
• For workplaces to be 100% free from toxic anti-White harassment, gaslighting, indoctrination, scapegoating, othering/separating White people from humanity through the use of POC/BIPOC/People of Color/Minority/Underrepresented labels, “anti-bias” and unconcious bias trainings, racialized discussions, race-segregated Business Resource Group (BRG) and ERG (Employee Resource Group) offerings, mandatory corporate discussions about race, exclusionary scholarships/grants/funding, anti-White hiring practices, anti-White internships, anti-White reading lists, anti-White holiday gift guides, et al
• To truly respect and empower Black individuals by prioritizing merit, fostering true equality
Is DieDEI.co racist?
No
Does DieDEI.co support diversity?
Yes
Does DieDEI.co support equity?
No
Does DieDEI.co support inclusion?
Yes
Define “Equity” in relation to DEI
In the context of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), equity refers to the practice of ensuring equal outcomes in employment, opportunities, and resources by giving preferential treatment or additional support to specific groups deemed disadvantaged, often based on race, gender, or other identity markers. Unlike equality, which treats everyone the same regardless of background, equity involves deliberately unequal measures—such as targeted hiring, promotions, or training programs—to close perceived gaps in representation or success. In practice, equity is increasingly seen as discrimination against majority groups like White employees, potential legal violations under laws like Title VII or NYSHRL.
Is racial harassment and scapegoating a form of discrimination, under New York State's Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law)?
Yes, racial harassment and scapegoating can constitute discrimination under New York State's Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), specifically § 296 of the New York Executive Law, when they create a hostile work environment or adversely affect an individual's employment based on race. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Does DieDEI.co hate Black people?
No. Rejecting DEI frameworks is a form of respect and support for Black people by prioritizing merit, agency, and equal treatment over paternalistic/maternalistic interventions. DEI brings Black employees and hires a stigmatization that can erode confidence, create imposter syndrome, and diminish the perceived legitimacy of their accomplishments. By advocating for equal treatment under the law and in institutions, we support a system where Black people are judged as individuals, not as representatives of a racial category. By rejecting quotas, we encourage Black individuals to navigate challenges, develop skills, and seize opportunities without expecting preferential treatment. In short, promoting DEI, particularly when it emphasizes Blackness, can be seen as patronizing, degrading, and dismissive of Black individuals' autonomy and merit.
Who does DieDEI.co most strongly condemn?
DieDEI.co strongly condemns corporate leaders, HR, DEI proponents, chief executives, directors, board members, and investors who actively support or have supported DEI programs that vilify, harass, shame, scapegoat, indoctrinate, or other employees or hires based on protected characteristics such as race.
What role do ESG scores play in a company's decision to "go woke" with DEI programs. How are they connected to institutional investors, like Blackrock, for example?
ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores significantly influence a company's decision to adopt robust Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, often perceived as "going woke," due to their integration into investment decisions and corporate evaluations by institutional investors like BlackRock. The "Social" pillar of ESG explicitly includes DEI metrics—such as board diversity and workforce demographics—which are increasingly scrutinized by rating agencies like MSCI and Sustainalytics. Companies with strong DEI initiatives tend to score higher on ESG assessments. Institutional investors like BlackRock, managing over $9 trillion in assets with $1 trillion in ESG-focused products, amplify this trend by integrating ESG criteria into their investment strategies. BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, emphasized in his 2018 and 2019 letters to CEOs that companies must demonstrate social purpose alongside profits, explicitly linking DEI to ESG performance. BlackRock has adjusted its language around DEI, replacing the term with "connectivity" in some contexts, but still assesses companies on diversity metrics. Posts on X suggest BlackRock’s influence is substantial, with some users claiming it "forces" DEI adoption by leveraging its stakes in Fortune 500 companies. Ultimately, ESG scores, backed by investors like BlackRock, incentivize DEI adoption.
Can a company sue an institutional investor for pressuring them into implementing DEI initiatives in order to receive financial support?
A lawsuit is possible but faces significant hurdles. The company would need to prove the investor’s pressure was unlawful, violated a contract, or caused specific harm.
If DEI/DEIB/D&I/CEI/DEIJ/DEIA/EDI/IDEA/IED/JEDI/DIB programs claim to want inclusion, why do they vilify Whiteness and White people and enact policies/call for enacting policies that harm them in corporate settings in a systematic, comprehensive way?
They do this partly out of personal belief, and partly to get more money from institutional backers who use DEI-weighted ESG scores as a funding metric.
So, as a White employee, I’m possibly being asked by my employer via their DEI statements and initiatives—as has been documented as happening at a few ad agencies we will share about, namely FCB, Wieden + Kennedy, and Saatchi & Saatchi—to view White people (including myself) as defective, racist, potentially violent, incurable, sensitive, problematic, of lower value than other races, categorically separated from other races (BIPOC/POC vs White), etc, so my company or its parent company can get more money?
Yes
So, in short, a main reason some companies may have DEI programs—often a form of top-down, corporatized anti-White indoctrination, gaslighting, and discrimination—is to get more money from investors?
Yes
What is the history of ESG scores and what are its most contentious parts?
The ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) score rating system emerged gradually, with no single inventor, as a framework to evaluate corporate sustainability and ethical practices. Its roots trace to the 1960s with the rise of socially responsible investing (SRI), which focused on avoiding “sin stocks” like tobacco or weapons. The modern ESG concept gained traction in the early 2000s, notably with the 2004 United Nations report Who Cares Wins, which coined the term and urged businesses to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors into investment decisions. The UN, alongside financial institutions and initiatives like the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI, launched 2006), standardized ESG metrics. The most problematic aspects of ESG scores, particularly the “Social” pillar, include Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) metrics, which critics argue introduce ideological biases and legal risks. DEI is often weighted heavily in ESG ratings.
What is CSR?
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) emerged in the 1950s as a concept urging businesses to consider their societal and ethical impacts. CSR encompasses voluntary initiatives like philanthropy, sustainable practices, and employee welfare, often detailed in annual reports to enhance reputation and stakeholder trust. In the U.S., companies use CSR to attract funding by showcasing social and environmental commitments that appeal to institutional investors, banks, and consumers. For instance, strong CSR reports can lower borrowing costs (e.g., Nike’s 2023 sustainable bonds raised $2 billion) and draw investment from ESG-focused funds, as 82% of investors value CSR for brand trust (2023 Edelman survey). DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is a key CSR component, focusing on workforce diversity, pay equity, and inclusive policies. Companies like Wieden+Kennedy highlight DEI in CSR (e.g., 2020 “white supremacy” report, artifact reference) to signal their view of social responsibility, though the DEI component risks legal scrutiny under Title VII or NYSHRL § 296 if it marginalizes, harasses, or discriminates against groups like White employees. CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is a framework, but organizations can be evaluated on their CSR performance, resulting in scores or ratings.
How do ESG scores differ from CSR?
CSR differs from ESG in scope and application: CSR is qualitative, narrative-driven, and voluntary, emphasizing broader societal impact, while ESG is quantitative, data-driven, and standardized by rating agencies (e.g., MSCI) to assess investment risk across environmental, social, and governance metrics. ESG scores directly influence funding decisions ($120 trillion in ESG assets, 2022), whereas CSR supports funding indirectly through reputation and alignment with ESG’s social pillar, particularly DEI.
Would DeiDEI.co support the use of ESG scores and CSR ratings if they cut DEI?
Yes
Who or what entity is best equipped to change the ESG ratings system, so DEI is removed?
Major ESG rating agencies (MSCI, Sustainalytics, S&P Global) are best equipped to remove DEI from ESG scores due to their direct control over methodologies, market influence, and ability to adapt quickly. They could act by revising the “Social” pillar to exclude DEI, citing legal risks (e.g., Title VII/NYSHRL violations for marginalizing White employees) or investor demand. Institutional investors, regulators, states, and corporations could amplify pressure, but their slower processes or competing priorities make agencies the most effective drivers of change.
Who or what entity is best equipped to change the CRS system, so DEI is removed?
Individual corporations, especially market leaders, are best equipped to remove DEI from CSR by revising internal policies, updating reports, and leading industry shifts, driven by legal risks (e.g., Title VII/NYSHRL violations) and stakeholder feedback. Wieden+Kennedy could, for example, pivot from DEI-heavy initiatives to neutral social goals. Investors, associations, regulators, and states can amplify pressure, but corporations’ direct control makes them the primary agents. Individuals can influence this by boycotting DEI-focused firms, submitting shareholder proposals, or amplifying critiques on X, as outlined previously. Monitoring corporate CSR reports and legal outcomes will track progress.
What can individuals do to pressure all involved to remove DEI from ESG scores?
Individuals can drive ESG reform to remove DEI by engaging rating agencies, pressuring investors, influencing corporations, advocating for regulatory change, pursuing legal action, and raising awareness on platforms like X. Collective action—through petitions, divestment, and public campaigns—is critical to sway agencies like MSCI, the most equipped to revise ESG metrics. By highlighting DEI’s legal risks (e.g., Title VII/NYSHRL violations) and economic downsides, individuals can build momentum for change. Monitoring X for campaign traction and legal outcomes will guide next steps. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What can individuals do to pressure all involved to remove DEI from CSR?
Individuals can pressure stakeholders to remove DEI from CSR by boycotting DEI-focused companies, filing complaints, advocating on X, engaging investors, pursuing legal action, and influencing associations. Targeting corporations like Wieden+Kennedy, which emphasize DEI in CSR, is key, as they control their frameworks and respond to market/legal pressures. Collective action—amplified via social media and supported by groups like America First Legal—maximizes impact. Monitoring DieDEI.co and platforms like X for campaign traction, corporate CSR shifts, and legal outcomes (e.g., EEOC cases) will guide next steps. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can someone sue an institutional investor like Blackrock for potentially incentivizing human rights violations via ESG score adoption?
Yes. Individuals (investors, employees, communities) or groups (NGOs, states) can sue BlackRock under consumer protection, fiduciary duty, discrimination, or securities fraud laws, or file OECD complaints for human rights violations. One successful way could be shareholders proving financial harm from ESG-driven investments in human rights-violating companies, or employees demonstrating clear DEI-related discrimination. Investors or shareholders could sue an institutional investor like BlackRock for breaching fiduciary duties if ESG-driven investments prioritize non-financial goals (e.g., social justice, DEI) over returns, especially if linked to human rights risks. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can someone sue an institutional investor like Blackrock for potentially incentivizing human rights violations via CSR ratings adoption?
Yes. Employees, shareholders, or advocacy groups could sue under Title VII, NYSHRL, fiduciary duty, or consumer protection laws, or file OECD complaints for human rights violations. Employees alleging workplace discrimination have the strongest domestic case, especially in New York’s lenient NYSHRL framework. Suing BlackRock for incentivizing human rights violations via CSR is plausible under anti-discrimination, fiduciary duty, or consumer protection laws, particularly if DEI policies cause workplace harassment. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
How can I find out if a company has ESG scores and receives money from institutional investors like Blackrock?
To determine if a company has ESG scores and receives money from BlackRock, you can consult publicly available data and resources. ESG scores are offered by various providers like MSCI, Moody’s, S&P Global, and Sustainalytics. To find out if BlackRock or a similiar institutional investor invests in a company, you can check regulatory filings like EDGAR, or use financial data platforms like Bloomberg.
Does DieDEI.co view the labels “POC” and “BIPOC” as offensive and misguided?
The labels “POC” (People of Color) and “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) can be seen as offensive and misguided because they reduce diverse racial and ethnic groups into a monolithic category, while implicitly labeling White people as separate and distinct from the greater human family. White people, like people of all races, are just one of many racial groups in the global human family, making up roughly 12% of the world’s population. These labels, popularized recently through “woke” social justice movements, can foster resentment by framing White people as uniquely privileged or culpable for systemic issues, often ignoring their contributions to technology, science, human rights, quality of life and wealth-building, which have benefited humanity broadly. Such framing is a form of segregation and risks vilifying Whites, sowing division rather than celebrating the beautiful plethora of races—each with unique histories and strengths—that enrich our shared humanity.
Could a company's use of the terms "POC" and "BIPOC" (such as W+K, which emphasize “BIPOC” in DEI) when managing its employees and/or applicants be seen as a form of racial discrimination/harassment, potentially violating state and federal human rights laws, since it segregates White people from the rest of the human family?
Yes. The use of “POC” and “BIPOC” in employee management could be seen as racial harassment or discrimination under Title VII and NYSHRL if it segregates or marginalizes White employees, creating a hostile work environment or disparate treatment. The terms’ implication that Whites are distinctly different from all other races could fuel resentment, but legal success requires evidence of specific harm, not just ideological offense. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
I’m an agency/company or an individual at a company. Should I be worried?
Companies and individuals that haven't engaged in, called for, or supported employee harassment, racial discrimination against applicants, racial quotas, unconcious bias training (which are often critical of Whiteness), race-based client partnerships, or extensive Equity initiatives likely have no cause for concern.
If Black representation in something is low, does this mean people are excluding them?
No
How can someone get a media job without DEI, racial quotas or affirmative action hiring?
Individuals, such as Black individuals, can secure media jobs based on merit by pursuing internships, vocational training at trade schools, or specialized advertising portfolio programs like Miami Ad School and VCU's Brandcenter, allowing their skills and portfolios to speak for themselves in a hiring process devoid of DEI quotas or affirmative action.
Can Black individuals apply to advertising portfolio schools like Miami Ad School and VCU’s Brandcenter?
Yes. See more here and here.
Why is DieDEI.co focusing on anti-White discrimination, and not just discrimination?
We are addressing anti-White discrimination (which legally includes harassment) as DEI initiatives exclusively target whiteness and White individuals as inherently problematic and worthy of discrimination and harassment.
What factors contribute to the vast majority—80%+— of DEI roles going to Black women?
Black women hold most DEI positions because companies prioritize hiring them to virtue signal, leveraging their racial and gender identity.
If DEI were to disappear, what would happen?
Hiring would revert to a merit-based system. White employees would stop being harassed, gaslit, and indoctrinated in corporate settings for protected characteristics such a race. Company resources would be equitably distributed. Workplace segregation in relation to BIPOC/POC vs White mentalities would end. Employees of all races would feel less stressed, confused, and afraid. Companies and individuals would be sued less, saving more money. Companies reputations would improve. Clients and partners won’t think about leaving due to financial risk at being associated with partners engaging in corporatized racial harassment and discrimination. An actual sense of unity and belonging could emerge.
Why are there so many White CEOs?
The predominance of White CEOs in the U.S. is rooted in historical and demographic realities: the nation was founded by White settlers, remained vastly majority White until very recently, and many major companies were started by White individuals, with leadership roles often filled from established, predominantly White networks.
Is “reverse discrimination” a legally-definited thing?
"Reverse discrimination" is not a formally defined legal term in U.S. federal law or most state laws, including those enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or under statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL § 296).
How can a Black or non-White person become a CEO or founder?
A Black or non-White person can become a CEO or founder by launching their own business through entrepreneurial initiative, attending schools (including porfolio schools for advertising), taking risks, leveraging industry connections, climbing the corporate ladder through exceptional performance, strategic networking, and securing mentorship within established firms.
Can a company/agency establish hiring quotes based around race?
No. Both the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), found in Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are key laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on their race, meaning that setting racial quotas in hiring is generally illegal under both federal and New York State law. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Tell me about the EOCC’s 2025 guidance around DEI.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance on March 19, 2025, prompted by Trump Administration Executive Orders, clarifying that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they involve race-based discrimination or harassment, such as disparate treatment, segregation, or hostile work environments; the guidance prohibits race-motivated employment actions like quotas, race-based training groups, or stereotyping in DEI programs, protects all racial groups equally without recognizing "reverse" discrimination, warns against retaliation for opposing unlawful DEI practices, and advises employers to audit policies, adjust training, and reinforce anti-harassment measures to ensure compliance, while encouraging employees to report violations through the EEOC Public Portal. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Companies talk about “minority hiring”. Who is a minority in 2025?
It depends on the state. In 2025, non-Hispanic Whites are a minority in Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Georgia, with several other states like Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Arizona approaching majority-minority status. At an estimated 12.6% of the global population, White people are a global minority.
Who can sue a company that violates human rights laws?
Current and former employees, job applicants, and interns (depending on their status), along with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination agencies, among others, can sue a company for violating race-based anti-discrimination and harassment laws. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If you applied to a company with discriminatory hiring practices and you didn’t get the job, can you sue the company?
Yes, if you applied to a company with discriminatory hiring practices based on race and were not hired as a result, you can sue the company under U.S. federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can a group of employees sue their company together?
Yes, in New York, a group of employees can sue their company together through a class action lawsuit or a collective action, provided certain legal requirements are met under New York State law, federal law, and procedural rules.
Can a group of employees sue a leading DEI practitioner at the company together, while also suing their company, in NY?
Yes. In New York, a group of employees can sue both their company and a leading Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practitioner at the company together in a class action lawsuit, provided the legal requirements for such a lawsuit are met under New York State law (New York State Human Rights Law, NYSHRL, § 296), federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and procedural rules.
Can a board member sue their company for knowingly violating human rights laws?
Yes, a board member can potentially sue their company for knowingly violating discrimination laws. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I've already sued a company for violating human rights laws, can I sue their parent company, too?
Yes, you can potentially sue their parent company as well. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I've already sued a company for violating human rights laws, can I sue individuals at the company who directly violated the law?
Yes, absolutely. You can definitely sue individuals at the company who directly violated human rights laws, even if you've already sued the company itself. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I've already sued a company for violating human rights laws, can I sue individuals at the company who directly aided other employees in violating the law?
Yes. You can sue individuals at the company who directly aided other employees in violating human rights laws, even if you've already sued the company itself. This is because individuals can be held liable for their participation in wrongdoing, even if they weren't the primary actors. The legal concept of aiding and abetting specifically addresses this type of conduct. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What is DidDEI.co’s definition of “DEI”? (or DEIB, D&I, et al.)
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a framework often promoted as a means to foster fairness and representation in organizations, but from an objective perspective, it is a divisive ideology akin to communism in its pursuit of enforced equality of outcome. Diversity, in this view, prioritizes superficial demographic quotas over merit, undermining individual achievement and competence. Equity, the most contentious pillar, is seen as a rebranded form of cultural Marxism, demanding equal results across groups regardless of differences in effort, ability, or cultural factors, mirroring communist principles of redistributing resources to erase disparities. This approach fosters resentment and inefficiency by punishing success and rewarding underperformance. Inclusion, while sounding benign, is criticized as a mechanism to silence dissent and enforce conformity to “progressive” ideals, stifling free thought and creating a culture of grievance and victimhood. Collectively, DEI is viewed as a coercive tool that erodes personal responsibility, promotes group-based thinking, and destabilizes institutions by prioritizing ideological goals over practical realities.
What are some recent historical examples of how a focus on equity and race has damaged individuals, economies, and nations?
The obsession with equity—defined as enforced equal outcomes—and racialized identity politics has historical precedents that led to catastrophic societal and economic collapse, scapegoating, asset reallocation, and widespread violence. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (1975–1979) epitomized this through their radical pursuit of a classless society, abolishing private property and targeting perceived "elites" (intellectuals, urban dwellers, and ethnic minorities) for extermination or forced labor, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1.7–2 million people and the destruction of the economy. Similarly, Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976) sought to erase class distinctions and enforce ideological purity, scapegoating "capitalist roaders" and intellectuals, leading to millions of deaths, mass asset seizures, and economic stagnation that left China impoverished for decades. The Rwandan Genocide (1994) further illustrates the perils of racialized identity politics, where Hutu extremist propaganda vilified Tutsis as oppressors, inciting a 100-day slaughter of approximately 800,000 people, fueled by fabricated narratives of ethnic inequity. These examples highlight how ideologies prioritizing forced equity and group-based grievances can destabilize societies, justify asset theft, scapegoat entire demographics, and unleash violence, leaving economies in ruins and populations traumatized.
Can DieDEI.co help me find a lawyer?
Yes. Please email info@DieDEI.co. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I submit internal DEI documents, will my info be shared?
No
Can anyone share internal DEI documents with DieDEI.co?
Yes
How are companies assessed in relation to DEI Grades?
If there is evidence—public or private—suggesting a potential violation of federal or state human rights laws such as New York State Human Rights Law regarding racial discrimination (including harassment) or indications of bias against White individuals in hiring, retention, company culture, training, compensation, or professional development, the agency will receive a rating of FAIL or TBD (To Be Determined). If there is no evidence suggesting a possible violation, the agency will receive a rating of PASS.
Why do DEI programs, which claim to focus on equality and inclusion, often seem to target White people negatively while favoring Black female candidates for leadership roles?
Many DEI programs, while claiming inclusion, can devolve into performative or ideologically driven efforts that prioritize certain groups over others, often at the expense of fairness. The vilification of White people sometimes stems from a simplistic narrative that paints them as inherently oppressive, ignoring individual differences and contributions. Hiring practices that heavily favor female and Black leaders can reflect quotas or tokenism rather than merit, undermining the very equality DEI is supposed to champion. This happens when programs prioritize optics or ideological goals over objective qualifications, leading to resentment and division rather than true inclusion. Data on this is murky, but anecdotes and lawsuits (e.g., against corporate DEI policies) suggest reverse discrimination is a real issue in some cases.
Besides New York State’s Human Rights Law, what is another legal precedent that DEI possibly violates?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.26 DEI initiatives, policies, or practices may be deemed unlawful if they result in employment actions motivated, even in part, by an employee's or applicant's protected characteristic.26 Specific practices flagged as potentially high-risk include using race or gender as determining factors for access to training, mentorship, or leadership programs, or basing employment decisions (hiring, promotion, compensation) on such characteristics, even with the intention of increasing diversity.27 Notably, legal guidance emphasizes that client or customer preference is not a valid defense against discrimination claims, and general business interests in diversity do not override anti-discrimination laws. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can an employee be sued by their company for publicly sharing illegal business conduct that violates New York State's Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law)?
Under New York State's Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law), an employee generally cannot be sued by their company for publicly sharing (whistleblowing) illegal business conduct related to violations of the NYSHRL, as such actions may be protected under anti-retaliation provisions and state whistleblower laws, provided the disclosure meets specific legal criteria. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What are the specific legal criteria?
For an employee to be protected from being sued by their company for whistleblowing about NYSHRL violations, they must: disclose conduct they reasonably and in good faith believe violates NYSHRL or other laws, attempt internal notification unless an exception applies (under § 740), limit disclosures to necessary information, act without malice or falsehood, and avoid breaching unrelated legal obligations. Failure to meet these criteria could expose the employee to lawsuits (e.g., for defamation or breach of contract). Employees should consult legal counsel to ensure compliance with these criteria in specific situations. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What is the threshold for defamation in New York?
In New York, the threshold for defamation requires proving a false statement, published to a third party, identifying the plaintiff, harming their reputation, made with the requisite fault (negligence or actual malice, depending on context), and causing harm (unless per se defamatory). The specific requirements vary based on the plaintiff’s status and whether the issue involves public concern, with defenses like truth, privilege, or whistleblower protections potentially applying. For precise application, legal counsel should be consulted. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can a company retaliate against me for working with legal counsel to file a complaint with the EOCC?
New York’s whistleblower laws, strengthened by 2022 amendments, provide robust protections against a wide range of retaliatory actions, including termination, demotion, harassment, and immigration-related threats. These protections cover current and former employees, as well as independent contractors, who report violations with a reasonable belief of wrongdoing. To pursue a claim, employees should act promptly, document evidence, and consult an experienced employment attorney to navigate the complex legal landscape. For further guidance, contact the New York Department of Labor at (518) 457-9000 or visit their website. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I sue my company for potentially violating a human rights law, can they retaliate?
In New York, if you sue your company for potentially violating a human rights law (e.g., discrimination based on race under the New York State Human Rights Law, NYSHRL, or New York City Human Rights Law, NYCHRL), it is illegal for your employer to retaliate against you for engaging in protected activities, such as filing a lawsuit or complaining about discriminatory practices. Both the NYSHRL (Executive Law §296) and NYCHRL (NYC Administrative Code §8-107) explicitly prohibit retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in proceedings to enforce human rights laws. Filing a lawsuit alleging human rights law violations is a protected activity, and you are safeguarded from retaliation under these laws, as well as potentially under federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if applicable. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What can an agency do to have their name be taken off the index?
Information can be updated and amended. Please schedule a consultation via the “CONTACT” link or by emailing info@DieDEI.co
How can I get in touch with DieDEI.co?
You may email info@DieDEI.co or write in via the “CONTACT” button.
Does DieDEI.co offer consultations for agencies?
Yes. Please email info@DieDEI.co
Can I sue my agency?
Possibly.
Can I sue my agency as well as C-suite individuals within my agency if they violated the NY State Human Rights Law?
Yes, in certain circumstances, you can potentially sue both your agency and individual C-suite members for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Agencies, as employers, are directly liable for discriminatory practices that occur within their workplace. Under NYSHRL, individual liability can extend to those who actively participate in discriminatory conduct. This means that C-suite individuals who directly engage in or enable discriminatory behavior can be held personally liable. Specifically, supervisors and managers can be held liable for aiding and abetting discriminatory practices. It is important to understand that aiding and abetting can be proven in many ways, including if a supervisor had knowledge of descriminatory actions, and failed to act to stop those actions. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Could a 501(c) organization that trains others to violate DEI laws be breaking the law itself?
Yes. A 501(c) organization (e.g., 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), etc.) that trains others to engage in illegal activities, such as racial discrimination or other violations of law, risks significant legal consequences, including loss of tax-exempt status and potential civil or criminal liability. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What is the Statute of Limitations in New York for bringing a lawsuit against an employer or individual?
As of February 15, 2024, the statute of limitations for filing unlawful discrimination claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights has been extended to three years. This applies to incidents of discrimination (which includes racial harassment) that occur on or after that date. This is not legal advice. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What is the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law)?
The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), specifically found in Article 15 of the Executive Law (which includes section 296), is a comprehensive anti-discrimination statute. Its primary purpose is to prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics in various areas of life within New York State. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What does the New York State Human Rights Law prohibit in a corporate work environment?
The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) broadly prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics like race, sex, and disability, aiming to ensure equal opportunity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. In employment, violations include discriminatory hiring, firing, harassment creating a hostile work environment (with a lower threshold than federal law), retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Courts often apply a "less well" standard (being treated less favorably than others because of their membership in a protected class), determining violations based on the totality of circumstances, and individuals can seek recourse through the New York State Division of Human Rights or legal counsel. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can my agency retaliate against me for filing a legal case around violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law)?
No. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who oppose discriminatory practices, file complaints, or participate in investigations. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I sue my company in NY for violating New York State's Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law) and win, how much will I as the plaintiff receive?
If a plaintiff wins a lawsuit against their company for violating NYSHRL § 296, they may receive compensatory damages (e.g., lost wages, emotional distress), punitive damages, equitable relief (e.g., reinstatement), and attorneys’ fees, with no statutory cap on damages, potentially ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars depending on the case’s severity, evidence, and employer conduct. The exact amount is determined by the court or DHR based on the specific circumstances, and consulting an attorney is essential to estimate potential recovery and navigate the legal process. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Do I need to pay a lawyer to represent me?
You do not need to pay a legal team upfront to represent you in a New York NYSHRL case, as contingency fee agreements, pro bono services, legal aid organizations, or DHR representation offer viable no-cost options, particularly for strong cases against well-funded employers. Given your interest in NYSHRL violations, whistleblowing, and damages, contingency arrangements are likely your best bet, with legal aid or DHR as alternatives if you’re low-income or prefer administrative proceedings. Contact employment law firms, legal aid groups, or the DHR to explore your options, and provide evidence to strengthen your case for free representation. If you share more details about your situation (e.g., employer size, specific violation), I can tailor further advice. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
What will happen next?
DieDEI.co will continue to expose public-facing as well as internal suspected violations of New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL, § 296 of the New York Executive Law) as they relate to anti-White corporate harassment around DEI. Please follow us on social for daily and weekly updates and information.
How can I help?
Please donate via the link above or by emailing info@DieDEI.co for more information. DieDEI.co relies on external support to sustain its operations. Donations are accepted via checks, Venmo, PayPal, and other methods.
What is DieDEI.co’s opinion of Black Lives Matter? (the organization, not the sentiment)
Black Lives Matter, based on Marxist thought, calls for the abolition of the nuclear family, police protection, prisons and capitalism, and views Whiteness as inherently oppressive and harmful. To BLM leader Melina Abdullah, Whiteness is “a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility.” While BLM sees “white supremacy” and police violence as the key obstacles for Black Americans, it says nothing about single parenthood, failing grades in school, or crime, including the stark disparity in homicide rates between races in the US (Black men are over four times more likely to be charged with murder than White men, despite being one-fifth as numerous. Said another way, Black men commit murder at 20x the rate as White men). Crime, regardless of who or what race commits it, brings heavier policing, incarceration, and poverty. Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85% and Whites commit 15%. In short, while passionate and filled with good intentions and love for Black people, Black Lives Matter is objectively a delusional, racist organization—with a feel-good mantra—that fails to address key factors around Black policing and poverty.
If I believe I’ve experienced discrimination related to DEI at work, can I file a lawsuit in federal court alleging a violation of Title VII without taking any other steps?
No. Before you can sue your employer in federal court for a violation of Title VII, you first must file a charge of discrimination (an administrative complaint) with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After you file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, there are other steps in the administrative process that must be completed before you can file a lawsuit in federal court. To learn more about these steps, please visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/what-you-can-expect-after-you-file-charge. Unless you timely bring an EEOC charge first, you cannot get a “right to sue” letter (also known as a “Notice of Right to Sue”) that would allow you to bring a Title VII claim in federal court. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
If I believe I’ve experienced discrimination related to DEI at work, what federal government entity can help me?
If you are not a federal employee, you first need to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (an “EEOC charge”). This is true no matter what type of non-federal employer you work for (a private sector employer, or a state or local government employer). An EEOC charge is an administrative complaint. Unless you timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC first, you cannot get a “right to sue” letter (also known as a “Notice of Right to Sue”) that would allow you to bring a Title VII claim in federal court. The EEOC enforces Title VII against private sector employers with 15 or more employees, and the Department of Justice enforces the statute against state and local government employers. For businesses and other private sector employers, the EEOC both investigates charges of discrimination against these employers and is authorized to bring a lawsuit against them. The EEOC can file a lawsuit after the agency has determined there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, and the agency is unable to resolve the matter through a process called “conciliation.” For state and local government employers, the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges of discrimination against such employers. If the agency determines there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred and the agency is unable to resolve the matter through conciliation, the EEOC then refers those charges to DOJ for potential litigation by the Department. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Do Title VII’s protections only apply to individuals who are part of a “minority group,” (such as racial or ethnic minorities, workers with non-American national origins, “diverse” employees, or “historically under-represented groups”), women, or some other subset of individuals?
No. Title VII’s protections apply equally to all workers. Different treatment based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic can be unlawful discrimination, no matter which employees or applicants are harmed. This has been the long-standing position of the EEOC and the Supreme Court. The EEOC does not require a higher showing of proof for so-called “reverse” discrimination claims. The EEOC’s position is that there is no such thing as “reverse” discrimination; there is only discrimination. The EEOC applies the same standard of proof to all race discrimination claims, regardless of the victim’s race. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Are only employees protected from DEI-related discrimination at work?
No. Title VII protects employees, applicants, and training or apprenticeship program participants. Title VII also may apply to interns. Depending on the facts, interns may be covered as employees, as applicants, or as training program participants. A charge of discrimination may be filed with the EEOC by any person claiming to be aggrieved. Additionally, a charge can be brought on behalf of an aggrieved person by a third-party, such as an organization. Finally, a Commissioner of the EEOC may bring a charge. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Are only employers “covered entities” under Title VII, that is, entities which must comply with Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination?
No. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees; employment agencies (including staffing agencies); entities which operate training programs (including on-the-job training programs); and labor organizations (like unions). Employers can be liable for the actions of their agents (including recruiters and staffing agencies). -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
When is a DEI initiative, policy, program, or practice unlawful under Title VII?
Under Title VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. Among other things, Title VII bars discrimination (“disparate treatment”) against applicants or employees in hiring, firing, compensation, or any term, condition, or privilege of employment. The prohibition against discrimination applies to a wide variety of aspects of employment. In order to allege a colorable claim of discrimination, workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment. The prohibition against disparate treatment, including DEI-related disparate treatment, includes disparate treatment in: Hiring, Firing, Promotion, Demotion, Compensation, Fringe benefits, Access to or exclusion from training(including training characterized as leadership development programs), Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking / networks, Internships (including internships labeled as “fellowships” or “summer associate” programs), Selection for interviews, including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool, Job duties or work assignments. Title VII also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities. This prohibition applies to employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises, and other forms of official or unofficial encouragement or participation), such as employee clubs or groups. In the context of DEI programs, unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups. Unlawful limiting, segregating, or classifying workers related to DEI can arise when employers separate workers into groups based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic when administering DEI or any trainings, workplace programming, or other privileges of employment, even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources. Employers instead should provide “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.” Employers also should ensure that “employees of all backgrounds . . . have equal access to workplace networks.” -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can an employer excuse its DEI-related considerations of race, sex, or another protected characteristic, provided that the protected characteristic wasn’t the sole or deciding factor for the employer’s decision or employment action?
No. For there to be unlawful discrimination, race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employer’s employment action or the “but-for” (deciding) factor for the action. An employment action still is unlawful even if race, sex, or another Title VII protected characteristic was just one factor among other factors contributing to the employer’s decision or action. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can an employer justify taking an employment action based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic because the employer has a business necessity or interest in “diversity,” including preferences or requests by the employer’s clients or customers?
No. Employers violate Title VII if they take an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. Title VII explicitly provides that a “demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination.” In particular, client or customer preference is not a defense to race or color discrimination. Basing employment decisions on the racial preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers constitutes intentional race discrimination. Employment decisions based on the discriminatory preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers are just as unlawful as decisions based on an employer’s own discriminatory preferences. Title VII allows employers to raise a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) as an affirmative defense in very limited circumstances to excuse hiring or classifying any individual based on religion, sex, or national origin. The exemption applies where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” However, this very limited carve-out for BFOQ excludes race and color. Title VII does not provide any “diversity interest” exception to these rules. Nor has the Supreme Court ever adopted such an exception. No general business interests in diversity and equity (including perceived operational benefits or customer/client preference) have ever been found by the Supreme Court or the EEOC to be sufficient to allow race-motivated employment actions. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Can an employer’s DEI training create a hostile work environment?
Title VII prohibits workplace harassment, which may occur when an employee is subjected to unwelcome remarks or conduct based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Harassment is illegal when it results in an adverse change to a term, condition or privilege of employment, or it is so frequent or severe that a reasonable person would consider it intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Depending on the facts, an employee may be able to plausibly allege or prove that a diversity or other DEI-related training created a hostile work environment by pleading or showing that the training was discriminatory in content, application, or context. In cases alleging that diversity trainings created hostile work environments, courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs who present evidence of how the training was discriminatory (for example, in the training’s design, content, or execution) or, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, who make plausible allegations that explain how the training was discriminatory. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
Does Title VII protect employees who oppose unlawful policies or practices, including certain DEI practices or trainings?
Title VII prohibits employers and other “covered entities” from retaliating because an individual has engaged in protected activity under the statute. Generally, protected activity consists of either participating in an EEO process (such as an employer or EEOC investigations or filing an EEOC charge) or opposing conduct made unlawful by Title VII. Depending on the facts, protected opposition could include opposing unlawful employment discrimination related to an employer policy or practice labeled as “DEI.” As previously noted by the Commission, courts have held that opposition to a DEI training may constitute protected activity if the employee provides a fact-specific basis for his or her belief that the training violates Title VII. -U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The information provided on this website—based on publicly available information—is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance.
LINKS
1) ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY -The White House, January 21, 2025
2) U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
3) https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-dei-related-discrimination-work