For more than three decades, Horizon Media formulated a public image as an industry leader on inclusion. The world’s largest privately held media agency won diversity awards, courted progressive-minded, marquee clients such as the NFL, Revlon Group, Spectrum, and Capital One, and stamped a simple promise across press releases and recruiting decks: “DEI is our DNA.”

A newly filed federal complaint contends that the DNA looked different inside. In the 60-plus-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New York, two of the company’s most senior Black women executives describe what they call a “two-track reality,” a public brand of equity that masked discriminatory practices of discrimination and retaliation. The suit names the company, its founder and chief executive, Bill Koenigsberg, President Bob Lord, Executive Vice President of Human Resources Nancy Galanty, and others, and alleges a relentless pattern of misconduct that, for one plaintiff, ended in termination under the pretext of a restructuring.

The plaintiffs are not outsiders. Latraviette Smith-Wilson is described as the highest-ranking Black woman in Horizon’s 36-year history and the only Black member of its C-suite and executive board during her tenure. She was fired. Charisma Deberry, who leads strategic communications projects, remains employed and alleges ongoing retaliation. Both women, the filing notes, are award-winning marketing professionals whose mainstream industry honors were repeatedly dismissed internally as mere “diversity awards.”

“This case seeks to hold executives accountable for unlawful retaliation, discrimination, and creating a hostile work environment. Companies cannot expect to get a pass and are not immunized by citing hires of women and people of color; the law requires equal standards, equal opportunity, and equal respect,” said Anne Clark of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C., counsel to the plaintiffs. “My clients never wanted to file this suit. They built results in the face of resistance. They’re coming forward because the mistreatment can’t be normalized, and accountability is overdue.”

Telephone messages were left late Thursday with Horizon’s offices in New York and Los Angeles, but the appropriate contact for a response could not immediately be identified or reached. 

The language of modern bias

The complaint does not center on slurs. Instead, it offers a vignette of the modern-day workplace, complete with coded language, disparate resources, shifting organizational charts, and shallow investigations that close quickly. According to the filing, Deberry was instructed by the chief executive during her first presentation to “seduce reporters” to secure coverage. In a separate interaction, Smith-Wilson recalls being told, “I brought you in here because you got a set of whatever … think about that.”

Other patterns, the plaintiffs say, were quieter but no less consequential. Deberry was told to be more “articulate” and warned not to appear “angry.” Smith-Wilson says the same facts that drew praise from white male colleagues were labeled “defensive” or “incompetent” when presented by her. She was told, repeatedly, that she was there to “serve” leadership and her male peers.

Starved teams and moving goalposts

Bias, the suit argues, also reared its head through headcount and budgets. While Smith-Wilson’s remit spanned the full enterprise, her team operated at roughly 25 to 40 % of planned staffing and, the filing says, was denied marketing hires, leaving her with fewer resources to meet rising organizational demands. White male peers with narrower scopes led larger teams, yet some of their duties still landed with Smith-Wilson’s understaffed group.

The complaint further alleges pressure to promote what the plaintiffs viewed as overstated claims about Horizon’s Blu technology platform. After raising concerns about readiness and accuracy, they were accused of not understanding the tools and threatened with public, on-the-spot “tests” of their knowledge.

Central to the suit are accusations about Horizon’s handling of bias reports. The complaint says that when Deberry cautiously corroborated a departing employee’s account of mistreatment of Black women leaders, Ms. Galanty promised confidentiality, then disclosed Deberry’s comments to senior leadership and pressed her to formalize a complaint. The matter was later closed after what the plaintiffs describe as a brief internal process led by Ms. Galanty’s subordinate.

An internal email cited in the filing, and sent to Smith-Wilson, acknowledged “gaps in Horizon’s exit interview process,” unclear investigative criteria, and a broader “need for training” for HR and leadership. The suit portrays that note as recognition of systemic problems that were not addressed in practice.

A “restructuring”

Smith-Wilson’s termination under a “restructuring,” the complaint says, was followed in less than two weeks by the announcement of a new enterprise-level chief marketing officer role, which was publicly touted as a “first” and “new” position despite mirroring responsibilities she previously held. 

The legal action also alleges that retaliation against Deberry escalated after Horizon received notice of potential litigation. She was removed from flagship industry events, including the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, despite media relations being central to her role and her position as the company’s only dedicated communications practitioner. On-site media tasks were assigned to staff with no prior media experience, while Deberry supported remotely across a nine-hour time difference. 

This is not the first time employees have questioned Horizon’s culture. In 2022, an anonymous LinkedIn letter, “The Cancer at Horizon Media,” described bullying and discrimination from junior staff perspectives. The new complaint notes that even a white woman resigned over the treatment of Black women, suggesting that concerns cut across levels and identities.

“What was said in press releases and what happened inside the company are two very different stories,” Clark said. “We have the evidence to prove it, all of which will be part of the legal record.”

What the case seeks and why now

The suit seeks relief under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, including compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

It also seeks something less quantifiable, which is a reckoning with the performance of equity. 

“Retaliation silences truth-tellers and violates both the spirit and the letter of the law,” Ms. Clark said. “It corrodes culture and puts long-term business health at risk.”

Horizon Media has not filed a response in court.