Media ignores racial discrimination lawsuit against Washington Post

Patrick Howley Political Reporter
Font Size:

The mainstream media is ignoring news of a racial discrimination lawsuit brought against flagship liberal newspaper The Washington Post.

“In the 2009 to 2011 time frame, the Post terminated the employment of at least 18 African Americans over the age of 40, and at least one Caucasian female over the age of 40,” according to a pending race and age discrimination lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Post advertising department employee David DeJesus, a black man, was fired in 2011 after 18 years of employment and replaced by a younger white man. DeJesus claims that his white boss Noelle Wainwright demeaned him and fired him in violation of the Post’s collective-bargaining agreement with the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Local 32034.

The guild later got DeJesus his job back, but Dejesus is now suing for back pay and a correction of his employment record, citing a violation of the Civil Rights Act, among other violations.

“The Post’s willful mistreatment and termination of DeJesus, a 59-year old African American man with an exemplary 18-year employment record with the Post, was based in whole or in part on his age, race, skin color and/or national origin,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, first highlighted by Daily Caller freelance writer Evan Gahr and reported on by Washington gossip site FishbowlDC, has failed to end up in the pages of America’s most prestigious liberal newspapers, which routinely accuse conservatives of engaging in racism.

Gahr says that media reporters for The Washington Post, Politico, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and Reuters ignored his requests for them to cover the story.

“My big question is why doesn’t WaPo invest in caller ID,” FishbowlDC editor Betsy Rothstein told The Daily Caller. “My inner 12-year-old cracks up every time Evan Gahr tricks another unsuspecting journalist over there into answering the phone and then berates him for not covering the suit. He even snagged Exec. Editor Marty Baron.”

New York Times managing editor Dean Baquet wrote in an email to Gahr that “no news organization in America would report on every discrimination lawsuit filed in every court in every medium-sized city.”

“They’re covering up the dismissal of a black employee by a white supervisor. This is not some kind of murky lawsuit, an arbitrator already ruled that the dismissal was unjustified,” Gahr said.

The Post routinely accuses others of racism and even influenced IRS agents to improperly target tea party groups with its unhinged coverage of the supposedly racist tea party movement.

“Does Obama know that he is being used by whites as proof that racism in America no longer exists,” went one January Post column. “Forget racial discrimination in the workplace; it can’t happen in the country that has a black president. Obama’s silence makes him complicit in this lie.”

Racial discrimination in the workplace does still exist in this country, according to DeJesus’ lawsuit.

“On July 23, 2011, DeJesus’ manager of three years, Noelle Wainwright (“Wainwright”), burst into DeJesus’ cubicle area and began shouting at him in an inflammatory and demeaning manner, accusing DeJesus of disobeying her instructions with respect to delivery of results to the client and advertising agency with respect to an advertisement recall study (“RAM” study),” according to the lawsuit.

“DeJesus was stunned and embarrassed by Wainright’s inappropriate and unwarranted outburst and attempted to defuse the situation as best he could and move the conversation into a private area.”

“On July 24, 2011, DeJesus received a calendar invitation for a meeting on July 27, 2011 at which time Wainright told DeJesus that he was ‘no longer a good fit for the company’ and asked to voluntarily resign. DeJesus was put on ‘administrative leave’ and given several weeks to decide, after which time DeJesus declined to resign,” according to the lawsuit.

“On August 3, 2011, DeJesus was issued a termination letter from Wainwright without any prior progressive discipline as outlined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but rather for supposed ‘willful neglect of duty and insubordination’ stemming from DeJesus’ order of a RAM study for a client purportedly ‘without proper authorization’ and his supposed failure to follow Wainright’s ‘specific instructions’ with respect to delivery to the client of the RAM study results,” according to the lawsuit.

“The Post replaced DeJesus with a Caucasian male under the age of 30, who, upon information and belief cost less for the Post and also earned much less revenue for the Post,” according to the lawsuit.

DeJesus also initially lost out on unemployment benefits because of the way the Post canned him, before the D.C. Department of Employment Services concluded that “the Post had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of job related misconduct, and that therefore DeJesus was indeed eligible for unemployment benefits.”

The Post’s answer and affirmative defense admitted the basic details of the DeJesus story, but denied that discrimination played a role in the employee’s firing.

“We do not comment on pending litigation” Post publicist Jennifer Lee told TheDC.

Follow Patrick on Twitter