Thoughts?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/business/eeoc-nike-white-employee-discrimination.html
63 replies (most recent on top)
I enjoy the folks convinced that they know entirely what every hiring manager did in the entire massive company to meet diversity goals.
Every other post is how corrupt and self-promoting management is, but they’d never, ever discriminate against whites to advance their own careers when company policy incentivized them to do exactly that.
@va Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers can’t make employment decisions because of race or s-x, even if the goal is diversity or helping historically disadvantaged groups.
So that’s means It is illegal to discriminate in hiring, promotion, pay, layoffs, or training because of race or s-x. The law protects everyone not just groups whom may have been discriminated against in the past.
This is the US law on discrimination in the workplace as it pertains to hiring, promotion and retention.
I really don’t see the big deal. All Nike did was monetarily incentivize executives to hit certain quotas. Delivered through specific and direct actions of specifically identifying candidates or employees that met a certain race or gender to be removed from consideration.
There may have been only a few, dozens, or hundreds, of people impacted negatively.
What’s the big deal? If so many are in support of this, how could it be wrong?
Section 703(a) — DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, S-X, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, s-x, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities,
or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, s-x, or national origin. 
@s2 Are you saying Nike’s DEI approach wasn’t discriminatory? Regardless of how the investigation started, the concern seems to be that linking VP compensation to hitting specific race and gender targets on a short timeline may have crossed into discriminatory territory. If the goal is truly fair and equitable hiring based on merit, then examining those practices is reasonable, is it not?
@rf It is a witch hunt by Republican Trump humpers. Just look at WHO opened the case, it was by the sole republican on the EEOC board and was universally frowned on by everyone (bipartisan and independents alike) because the agency almost never files suits against companies without any actual grievances made, but this as----e did. Then magically when Trump got re-elected, the same guy who pushed for this gets elected to the head of the EEOC. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because he was attacking companies that didn't bend the knee to Trump? because it sure looks exactly like that. Just because you are white and personally benefit from that, doesn't mean this isn't all bullsh-t.
This is the crux of the issue.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/nike-sets-diversity-goals-for-2025-ties-executive-comp-back-to-them.html
White men were specifically targeted so executives could make their diversity bonus. It’s that simple. Come up with whatever “white men deserved to get it” justification you want, but what you are really doing is fighting for the opportunity of 30 millionaires to make more millions on the backs of people lower than them all while selling it as racial equality. White, black or grey, doesn’t matter who they targeted, they did it to make themselves money.We should all be outraged.
As well if anyone wants to say this was a witch hunt by the current administration the EEOC first opened this investigation in 2024.
Multiple things can be true at once. Especially at a very large company.
@m0 always has been
@jt So, nepotism then?
there is always a name on the table and HR always creates the job postings for the preferred candidate. I hope the feds are reading this place.
I tested the system with my teammates:
Director position:
I sent a candidate who was a senior manager with 10+ headcount with HS's in a row and was checking 99% of the boxes. They had proper references at GM level. There was an unrelated clause that was asking for a particular domain expertise for at least a year. A candidate who checked 60% of the boxes (white cis male) got the job.
Reason: They were high school buddies with the SD
Lead:
I deliberately sent a manager with 5+ headcount who was 100% checking all boxes and was a white cis male. Good rating, 10 years at Nike. A relatively new hire grade 35 got the job, cis white woman. She was from the same home country as the hiring manager and spoke the same native language. They used a niche clause again regarding education to bump her up.
Lead:
I sent another highly promising lead, asian cis male. Ivy league grad. They hired a white cis woman for the job who was a manager with 8+ headcount. Someone wanted to get her out and someone wanted to preserve her. They used a niche education clause on some stupid certification to bump her up.
Director (0 headcount):
I sent another director with 10+ exp. and 3+ headcount. Education and background was checking out. White cis man. They hired an inexperienced director with zero talent, cis white woman. She was close friends with the senior director. Turns out that she opened to headcount to save her friend from the layoffs as the position was redundant and she didnt do any actual work, only acted like an EA to the SD to the point of managing their calendar.
It is a club and you aint a part of it
I’ve gone to leaders to voice my interest in roles that would get me a step up from my current position. I’ve been told to my face, not to bother because it’s already known that the position was specifically created for someone already at Nike, the job posting was just a box that had to be checked. Jobs have to be posted internally and externally for “x” amount of days to give the illusion that HR is searching for the best talent.
I’m going to leave this here -
Former Diversity Program Manager at Facebook and Nike Sentenced to Federal Prison for $5 Million Fraud
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/former-diversity-program-manager-facebook-and-nike-sentenced-federal-prison-5-million
Aggressively swept under the rug. BFS and DEI was everywhere, until it wasn’t.
@cb uh.. it can't be purely merit based too. Otherwise the only people we end up with will be asian.
The actual “Speak Up” that Nike needed.
LOL. You were thanked for your input, and your experiences were recognized.
The irony is that you’re calling others lived experiences hearsay and opinion. When they are a result of company policy. That is currently being investigated.
You’re the one that sounds intolerant.
I'm always surprised by how many non-American / Visa holders there are at Nike. I know for a fact there are people here in the US who can do the jobs that the company bends over backwards to have filled by non-citizens. I do not understand why a guy from the UK needs to be moved here, which costs over $100K for relocation alone, to do a job that could easily be filled by someone local. It might appear like there's discrimination based on skin color, but it's worse than that - Nike is demoralizing the American worker.
@ed got it. Your opinion based on hearsay is worth more than direct personal experience.
Get back to work. That’s why you don’t get roles.
To be clear, the subpoena and current federal investigation has nothing to do with your experience.
And nowhere in this thread has anyone mentioned disdain for the diversity and inclusion training. Either in relation to hiring, retention, promotion, etc…
I’m a fan of diversity and inclusion training. I’m a fan of training everyone on biases. To help remove blinders, and to educate.
But again, that’s not the issue. This isn’t about a “story to tell.” And frankly, this isn’t about anything you’ve brought up. Appreciate you weighing in.
What are your thoughts in relation to the topic at hand? Are you pro monetized performative inclusion to the benefit of Nike execs resulting in exclusionary actions of certain groups? What did your training have to say about this?
Do we have training that articulates that it is good to exclude certain groups if it results in a better bonus for you or your boss? Because, that is exactly what we’re doing.
So MD does the promotion thing, people get promoted, likely frustrating many others in other orgs.....then MD is let go....is this correlated...were people promoted that didn't meet the 'agenda' and so..see ya? Likely more to it then than, but the timing is interesting
@dx I was never told to remove candidates. I was specifically asked to make sure I do not remove people because they don’t come from the “usual” places, see the difference?, and it included good training in the topics of bias and discrimination, which is and was very real.
I don’t know how it played with slt, I am just telling how it happened to me. Sorry is not the story you want to tell.
Does anyone know how the exec bonus works in relation to DEI? Are they using a field in workday? Are they measuring the total org population, or just their leadership team? What if I have a qualifying heritage, but isn’t observable? How would they know, or not know I’m 1/16th of a given background. Would I count for less?
Just look at the slt in gtech. Only one country! then look at our contract folks, yet again the same country. From which country was RAT from? Again you know the answer. Look at the way promotions happened when MD launched rhe stupid pilot program for inline promotions, again from which country were the folks majorly from or which org dominated ? Do i need to go on? Or is this enough? You d-mbfks. Ffs clean up the dirt.
Get your screenshots of this thread now before HR gets it yanked.
If you are not hiring the most qualified candidate due to race or s-x it’s called discrimination. Thats the law. That’s what’s been going on at Nike and we all saw it. Nike is going to be fined big by this administration. The dummies have it all in writing in the policies and in the HR records.
You’re missing the point.
When all white male candidates are removed from the candidate pool simply for being a white male… it is not fair hiring.
Yes this happens. Exec compensation is improved the more it happens.
The company realises that 30-50% of the population gets less than 20% of the jobs. So they train everyone on biases and ask more efforts to focus less on “like me “ candidates ( similar school, same city area, same sport preference, same groups of interests, etc).
That is fairness, not discrimination. I hired several people over the years, and all I was asked for is to be more fair and give same chance to different people.
This is my experience. I am sorry it insults some snowflakes that think they should have got a job mostly because they went to a nicer college.
@de absolutely agreed 10000%. White women are very much so discriminated against at Nike and denied promotions and hiring. More so than white males as a matter of fact in tech. The only people getting ahead in tech at Nike are people of Indian origin. They also now keep hiring in India in ITC while zero hiring and promoting is happening in US. No wonder this action and complains.
White women benefited by far the most by the DEI push. Followed by women of color which allowed two boxes to be ticked at once.
@bd I can tell you that white women are discriminated against just as much as white males. Happening time and time again and if you're 50+ years of age you don't stand a chance.
Damn, the Oregon whites are upset
what's wrong with merit based hiring and promoting?
what happened to 'do the right thing'
why is nike so he-l bent on hiring and promoting people who clearly don't deserve it
and this aligns with the innovation pipeline going dry, tech workers leaving
generally not attracting or retaining any good talent what so ever, tech, design, marketing
so this is the result of your dei hire, and this is strongly supported by the white left minded people, for why exactly?
you want to see this company fail?
just get back to 'doing the right thing', if nike ever really did that
then...just maybe..there's a chance this sinking ship can be righted
and that's still a big maybe, because once you lose consumer confidence, it's real real real hard to get back
and that's on the bod from 2020 on...they fell into the woke trap and can't get out
Well no sh-t. When you're hiring processes revolve around favorability to people based on their gender or skin color, that's discrimination - racial or s-xual.
Very happy to see Nike held accountable for the widespread discrimination of the past several years. I was denied opportunities and a promotion because I’m a male of an incorrect race as far as Nike HR was concerned. And there were some leadership development programs that some female and non-white employees were invited to, but I was told that they “aren’t for (me)”.
After we agreed that recruiting and interviewing a diverse talent pool was important, the VP leading our team said:
“I don’t think hiring the most qualified candidate is important anymore.”
@bf They didn't even give the Nike people who arent from Nordstrom those bonuses when they launched WD did they? Thats what I've herd. Bad look.
The real discrimination is from the pipeline of corporate hires that are brought in time and time again. Example: HR shifting from consultant agencies to letting Nordstrom leftovers take over. Hire each other. Give bonuses for "good jobs" then fully remote roles. While all their partners are on site 100% of the time.
HR needs to be cleared OUT. Start with People Solutions.
This.
“For this hire, make sure you don’t hire someone that… you know, like you”
Actual sentence from a leader at Nike. Who then proceeded to hand pick all candidates moved to the interview stage.
Tough to call yourself an equal opportunity employer when you do this.