The decision was NOT mine. I would have NEVER done this.
In a city long shaped by the tensions between historical exclusion and present-day remedy, a White developer's lawsuit against Baltimore's mayor asks an enduring question: when does a corrective become its own injustice? Andrew Freeman's claim that he was dismissed from a city development agency not for what he did but for who he is places the ideals of equity and equal protection in direct conversation — a dialogue American institutions are still learning how to hold.
- A text message from Freeman's own boss may be the lawsuit's sharpest edge — she wrote that the firing wasn't her decision and that she never would have made it herself.
- The timing is difficult to explain away: Freeman had just been promoted when he was let go, undermining the later claim that poor performance drove the termination.
- Freeman's legal team argues the mayor's DEI agenda, rather than leveling the field, has become a mechanism for displacing people based solely on race — the very harm such programs were designed to prevent.
- Baltimore now finds itself legally exposed on two fronts: the city sued the Trump administration in 2025 to defend DEI programs, and is now being sued for allegedly weaponizing those same programs against a White employee.
- Freeman is seeking damages, a permanent injunction, and broader remedies — signaling this is not merely a personal grievance but a challenge to the structural implementation of the administration's diversity policies.
Andrew Freeman served as vice president at East Baltimore Development Inc. until 2024, when he was let go just weeks after receiving a promotion. He has now filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against Mayor Brandon Scott, the Baltimore City Council, and EBDI itself, alleging the termination was ordered by the mayor's office because of his race.
The lawsuit's most striking evidence is a text message sent by EBDI's president and CEO shortly after Freeman's firing. In it, she told Freeman the decision was not hers, that she would never have made it independently, and that she felt terrible about it. Freeman's attorneys argue this message dismantles any performance-based justification — a position further complicated by the fact that he had just been promoted. The suit also alleges that the mayor's then-advisor directed EBDI to fire Freeman while simultaneously working to rehire a Black woman who had previously held a senior real estate role at the agency.
When Freeman initially threatened to file a discrimination charge, EBDI shifted its explanation, citing performance failures and a misalignment with company values. His legal team calls this a post-hoc rationalization inconsistent with the promotion he had just received.
The lawsuit situates the firing within a broader critique of the Scott administration's DEI initiatives, arguing they have moved from lawful efforts to address historical exclusion into a practice of awarding opportunity based on racial identity alone. Freeman is seeking monetary damages, a permanent injunction against further discrimination, and remedies for past discriminatory practices.
The case carries an ironic civic weight: Baltimore, under Scott, sued the Trump administration in 2025 to defend DEI programs from federal elimination. That same city now faces a lawsuit arguing its locally implemented version of those programs has itself become a source of racial harm.
Andrew C. Freeman, a White developer who held the position of vice president at East Baltimore Development Inc., filed a racial discrimination lawsuit on Monday against Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott, the Baltimore City Council, and EBDI itself. Freeman's claim centers on his termination in 2024, which he says occurred just weeks after his promotion and at the direct behest of the mayor's office—allegedly because of his race in a workplace where most employees are Black.
According to the lawsuit, EBDI President and CEO Cheryl Y. Washington sent Freeman a text message on June 10, 2024, shortly after firing him. In that message, Washington wrote that the decision to terminate him was not hers, that she would never have made it on her own, and that she felt terrible about it. Freeman's legal team argues this admission proves the firing was not performance-based but rather a directive from above. The lawsuit alleges that Scott's then-advisor Calvin Young and the mayor's office ordered Washington to let Freeman go and simultaneously work to rehire Karen Major Johnson, a Black woman who had previously served as Chief Real Estate Officer.
Freeman contends that Mayor Scott was displeased with his promotion, viewing it as misaligned with the administration's stated priorities. When Freeman initially threatened to file a discrimination charge in 2024, EBDI shifted its public justification, claiming he had been terminated for performance issues and failure to align with company core values. Freeman's lawyers argue this explanation is contradicted by the fact that he had just been promoted—a move that would be unlikely if serious performance problems existed.
The lawsuit frames the termination as part of a broader pattern within the Scott administration. Freeman's legal team characterizes the mayor's diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as discriminatory in practice, arguing they provide opportunities to people "simply because they check a box" rather than creating genuinely equal footing. The lawsuit states that while lawful DEI programs aim to address historical exclusion of underrepresented groups, Scott's approach allegedly disadvantages people based solely on race.
Freeman is seeking monetary damages for his firing, a permanent injunction preventing further discrimination by the defendants, and an order requiring the city and EBDI to remedy the effects of past discrimination in other contexts. The mayor's office and EBDI did not respond to requests for comment. The Baltimore City Council declined to comment on the lawsuit.
The case arrives amid a national reckoning over diversity programs in government. Scott and the city of Baltimore had themselves filed suit against the Trump administration in 2025 after the president issued an executive order to eliminate DEI initiatives in federal agencies. That lawsuit represented the city's defense of such programs. Freeman's case now challenges whether those same programs, as implemented locally, have crossed into unlawful discrimination against people outside the groups they were designed to benefit.
Notable Quotes
On June 10, 2024, Ms. Washington sent Mr. Freeman a text message in which she wrote, 'Andy this decision was NOT mine! Not at all!! I would have NEVER done this. NEVER! I totally understand your response and don't take it personally. I feel HORRIBLE!!!'— EBDI President and CEO Cheryl Y. Washington, in text message to Freeman
Mayor Scott has explicitly made providing opportunities for underrepresented minorities, particularly Black women, a top priority of his Administration.— Freeman's lawsuit filing
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What made Freeman decide to sue rather than move on after being fired?
The text messages. When Washington admitted the decision wasn't hers, that she felt horrible about it, Freeman had evidence the firing wasn't what EBDI later claimed—that it wasn't about his performance. That admission gave him something concrete to build a case on.
Why would the mayor's office care so much about who gets promoted at a development agency?
Because EBDI is a city agency, and Scott had made opportunities for underrepresented minorities—particularly Black women—a stated priority of his administration. When Freeman got promoted over or instead of someone fitting that profile, it apparently triggered a response from above.
Is Freeman arguing that DEI itself is wrong, or that it was applied wrongly here?
The lawsuit distinguishes between the two. It says lawful DEI creates equal opportunity for historically excluded groups. But it argues Scott's version just hands opportunities to people who "check a box," regardless of merit or fit. That's the core claim—not that diversity is bad, but that this was done arbitrarily and at someone else's expense.
What does Washington's text actually prove?
It proves she didn't want to fire him and felt pressured to do it. That's the smoking gun. If she'd fired him for performance reasons, why would she say the decision wasn't hers and that she'd never have done it?
What happens next?
Freeman wants money, an injunction to stop further discrimination, and a court order to fix past discrimination at the agency. But the real question is whether a judge agrees that promoting diversity can become illegal discrimination if it's done carelessly enough.