The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Tuesday that it had entered an agreement with the St. Louis Sheriff’s Office to resolve 13 charges of race- and age-related discrimination.

EEOC investigated the Sheriff’s Office and found that former Sheriff Alfred Montgomery used his position to terminate nearly a dozen white employees and two black employees for reasons other than their job performance. Before he was sworn in, Montgomery publicly announced that he “could not wait to get rid of these white officers” and “top-heavy” employees, a reference to older workers, the EEOC found.

Montgomery also allegedly referred to the white employees he terminated as a “racist gang.” After firing the white officers, Montgomery allegedly told his former deputy that “he needed to fire a black guy” to buck a lawsuit for discrimination against white employees.

“The EEOC is firmly committed to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws evenhandedly, without favor or prejudice, to ensure all workers are protected,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a press release. “Race discrimination is unlawful no matter who the target is, and employers must ensure their decisions are not based on bias or stereotype.”

The sheriff’s office denied the allegations but agreed to enter the pre-litigation conciliation process, resulting in a settlement that requires the sheriff’s office to “electronically post and distribute all newly created and/or revised employment policies in compliance with Title VII and the ADEA; provide training to its employees about their rights under Title VII and the ADEA; train human resources personnel and management who exercise decision-making authority; post a notice to employees about the resolution of the case and their rights under the laws enforced by EEOC; and report to the EEOC about its compliance with the terms of the 13 conciliation agreements” for the next five years.

The agreement is part of a Trump administration crackdown on racism against white people. In July, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a white male employee at the New York Times who was allegedly targeted because of his race and sex. The media outlet has publicly stated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and in 2021, the outlet stated that it had enacted goals to increase non-white and female representation in leadership positions. 

As Just the News reported at the time, a white senior staff editor who had been working at the Times for more than a decade applied for a position as deputy real estate editor. The white employee had extensive experience in real estate journalism, but was left out of its final panel interviews for the position in early 2025. All candidates who were interviewed as part of the final process were non-white. Ultimately, the Times hired a non-white woman with little to no experience in real estate journalism even though the experience was a requirement for the position. The woman didn’t go through the standard interview process for the position and was rated less favorably for the position than the other two final candidates by the final interview panel.

“No one is above the law — including ‘elite’ institutions. There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles. The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head. No matter the size or power of the employer, the EEOC under my leadership will not pull punches in ensuring evenhanded, colorblind enforcement of Title VII to protect America’s workers, including white males,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. “Federal law is clear: making hiring or promotion decisions motivated in whole or in part by race or sex violates federal law. There is no diversity exception to this rule.”

A spokesperson for the Times told Politico in July that “the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.”