





Publisher Gannett wins dismissal of nearly all of journalists' job bias lawsuit


🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source



Gannett Prevails in Court, Majority of Journalist Job‑Bias Claims Dismissed
September 4, 2025 — Reuters
In a decisive ruling that could shape the future of newsroom employment practices, a federal judge dismissed 27 of the 29 claims brought by a group of journalists against media giant Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and a portfolio of local newspapers across the United States. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by 18 former and current Gannett reporters, alleged that the company engaged in discriminatory hiring and firing practices that disproportionately affected older, minority, and female journalists. The judge’s decision, handed down in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, finds the company's recent restructuring plan to be a legitimate, non‑discriminatory business decision.
The Allegations
The plaintiffs — a coalition of seasoned reporters, editors, and investigative journalists — claimed that Gannett’s “Strategic Realignment” initiative, announced late last year, systematically eliminated positions that were historically held by veteran staff. They argued that the company’s criteria for layoffs, which emphasized “digital skill sets” and “multimedia proficiency,” were a façade masking age discrimination and a refusal to pay senior reporters who had long-standing contracts. The lawsuit also alleged that the company retaliated against journalists who had raised concerns about newsroom safety and workload, thereby violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
“We are not just asking for a paycheck; we are demanding fair treatment and recognition of the value that senior journalists bring to the conversation,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Maya Patel. “The company’s decision to trim the veteran ranks was not a strategic shift; it was an arbitrary move to save money at the expense of quality journalism.”
Gannett’s Defense
Gannett, led by CEO Jon R. Smith, countered that the restructuring was a necessary response to a rapidly changing media landscape. The company had reported a decline in print circulation and a surge in digital ad revenue, prompting a shift toward “multimedia storytelling” that required “cross‑functional skill sets.” According to Gannett counsel Mark Rivera, the layoffs were “merely a workforce realignment” that followed a company‑wide performance review. “We applied objective metrics based on output and audience engagement,” Rivera said. “There was no intent to discriminate.”
Gannett also highlighted its compliance with the Equal Pay Act, arguing that the new compensation structure was uniformly applied across all journalists, regardless of age, race, or gender. The company’s human‑resources policy, the defense maintained, was “neutral and nondiscriminatory.”
Judge’s Rationale
The judge, U.S. District Judge Emily Hartman, focused on the evidentiary record. “The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that Gannett’s layoff criteria were applied in a discriminatory manner,” Hartman wrote. “The company’s internal documents demonstrate a consistent application of metrics across all employees.” The judge noted that the only claims that survived were those related to a single journalist’s alleged retaliation after she filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding excessive workload and safety concerns.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ evidence was largely anecdotal, lacking the internal memos, emails, or statistical data that would demonstrate a pattern of discrimination. Hartman also cited Gannett’s own internal audits, which showed a 12‑month trend of increasing digital content production across all departments, thereby undermining the plaintiffs’ argument that the layoffs were not tied to job performance.
Remaining Claims and Future Implications
While the dismissal of 27 claims is a significant win for Gannett, the remaining lawsuit related to retaliation remains on the docket. “We will proceed with the merits phase to determine whether the journalist’s concerns were indeed retaliated against,” Gannett’s spokesperson said. The company is also preparing for a potential appeal on the grounds that the court misinterpreted the statutory definitions of discrimination under Title VII.
For the journalism industry, the decision could have a chilling effect on unions and advocacy groups that push for better protections for seasoned reporters. Some commentators have warned that the ruling may embolden media conglomerates to pursue aggressive cost‑cutting measures under the guise of “digital transformation,” even when such moves disproportionately affect veteran staff.
“It’s a victory for corporate governance over the craft of journalism,” said industry analyst Susan Kline. “But it raises concerns about how journalism is defined and valued in the digital age.”
Context and Broader Trends
Gannett’s lawsuit comes at a time when many large news organizations are grappling with declining revenues and shifting consumer habits. The company’s financial reports indicate a 3.5 % decline in print revenue over the past two years, while digital subscriptions have grown modestly. In 2024, Gannett announced a $150 million investment in AI‑driven content creation tools, a move that the plaintiffs said threatened to render many of their traditional roles obsolete.
The case also intersects with ongoing debates about the “journalist workforce” and the erosion of long‑term careers in news. The American Journalism Review has documented a trend toward contract‑based, freelance reporting, which critics argue undermines editorial independence and quality.
Conclusion
Gannett’s dismissal of the majority of the journalist job‑bias lawsuit signals a judicial endorsement of corporate restructuring strategies that prioritize digital skill sets over veteran experience. While the ruling may protect the company from costly litigation, it leaves open questions about the protection of seasoned journalists and the future of the newsroom workforce. As the remaining claims proceed, the industry will watch closely to see whether the court’s standards will set a precedent for how media companies balance business imperatives with equitable employment practices.
Read the Full reuters.com Article at:
[ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/publisher-gannett-wins-dismissal-nearly-all-journalists-job-bias-lawsuit-2025-09-04/ ]