The first 27 pages of arbitrator Sarah Miller Espinosa’s ruling (PDF) provide the history and context of Karen Attiah’s grievance case against The Washington Post (which she won). The “Analysis and Decision” section starts on page 28 and includes this withering response from Espinosa to the Post’s argument that Attiah was fired because her Bluesky posts “disparage White men”:

That interpretation is unsupported by the actual words, as well as the context, of the Grievant’s posts. The Grievant was referring to a subset of White men, specifically “white men who espouse hatred and violence” and a “white man who espoused violence.” Simply based on the plain language of the text, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Grievant’s posts were referring to or disparaging all White men or disparaging a particular white man on the basis of race or gender. Recognizing an individual’s or individuals’ race or gender does not, in and of itself, constitute misconduct.

The Company’s argument that “Post leadership genuinely interpreted Ms. Attiah’s posts as targeting a group based on their race and gender, given her specific references to White men” is unpersuasive because such an interpretation is unsupported by the actual words of the posts.

[…] It is indisputable that race and gender dynamics are often the subject of commentary and reported on in various contexts. Recognizing the race and gender of individuals does not, in and of itself, constitute disparagement on the basis of race or gender.

It’s rather telling that the Post’s leadership interpreted Attiah’s remarks about specific subsets of white men to be a disparagement of all white men. Perhaps it’s leadership who believe all white men espouse violence.

(Via Democracy Defenders Fund, which provided legal support for the case.)