Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Laid-off Black executive claims IBM discriminated in response to Trump’s anti-DEI directives, shows favoritism towards other groups, (May 6, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“Less than a month after the Trump administration’s very public and emphatic directives on DEI, Defendant terminated five of seven African American executives, and all three Black Vice Presidents.”

A Black Vice President of IBM Z Data and AI, who had worked for IBM for 26 years, alleges in a newly-filed lawsuit that she was fired by her employer in early 2025, alongside two other Black VPs and four additional Black IBM executives, as part of its response to the Trump administration’s anti-DEI sentiments and directives. She alleges that she was replaced by a South Asian employee, which she contends was also consistent with the employer’s preferential treatment of South Asian employees over Black employees prior to and after her termination. In her complaint, she lays out claims under Title VII and Section 1981 and seeks compensation of “not less than $1,150,000,” along with costs, attorneys’ fees, and other remedies.

As she describes the events that occurred, after the November 2024 election, the newly elected administration vowed to insist that private companies abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. She alleges that during a regularly scheduled question session held by IBM’s CEO, who is South Asian, he answered a question asked about IBM’s posture with respect to the Trump administration’s directives on DEI and stated, “of course we will comply,” or words to that effect.

Actions after inauguration, EOs. She alleges that while IBM made no other public statements about abandoning DEI, shortly after the inauguration and the dissemination of Executive Orders on reversing DEI efforts, “an inexplicable exodus of Black senior executives occurred at IBM,” including her. “Less than a month after the Trump administration’s very public and emphatic directives on DEI,” she alleges, “Defendant terminated five of seven African American executives, and all three Black Vice Presidents.”

She asserts that “in order to appease the Trump administration, and to remain favored by the Defense Department and other government agencies with large IBM contracts, Defendant removed several high profile African American employees, despite the fact that there was no performance-based reason to terminate their employment.” She adds that “in several instances, including with Plaintiff, African American female executives were replaced by less qualified South Asian employees.”

Strong performer. The VP alleges that she was a consistently strong performer, who was never placed on any kind of performance improvement plan or given written feedback that her performance was unsatisfactory. In fact, she alleges that throughout her 26-year tenure at IBM, she had always excelled in her performance and received merit-based bonuses, ranging from 53 to 106 percent of her base salary, every year that she was eligible for as an executive.

In spite of that, she alleges that during her exit interview following her termination, which prior to that meeting had been described as being part of a restructuring effort during which her job was supposedly eliminated (it was, in fact, given to a South Asian employee, she contends), her supervisor informed her of purported performance concerns. The same supervisor had just, three months earlier, indicated to another IBM executive, who was seeking to recruit the VP to join his team, that she was indispensable.

No new job. She alleges that unlike Black employees who were terminated during recent reorganizations, IBM leadership offered opportunities to South Asian employees to quietly shift to new roles when their previous roles were eliminated. However, the plaintiff has not yet been able to secure new employment.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York; the case is No. 26-CV-3664.

News: LitigationNewsTrends Discrimination ESGNews