This invitation is addressed to David Larocca, EY Oceania’s CEO and Regional Managing Partner, for EY’s explanation of its recruitment and progression rules.
Atlas finding: EY publishes a target for women to comprise 40% of its Oceania partnership by 2027 and has described women-specific career pathways. Candidates and employees need to know how these measures affect their access to opportunities.
Why it matters: Recruitment, development and partnership decisions shape earnings, experience and career progression. A man deciding whether to join EY or invest years pursuing partnership should understand the rules before making that commitment.
What we want: Upfront disclosure of whether and how sex affects opportunity, publication of the relevant selection and progression data, and a clear explanation of the legal basis for any sex-specific treatment. We call on EY to address unequal access and welcome constructive, evidence-based dialogue.
1. What EY claims
EY presents its workplace as inclusive and committed to equitable outcomes. Its 2025 Oceania scorecard describes processes and decisions intended to enable opportunities, skills and development for everyone. Its 2026 Australian gender pay gap report describes efforts to make decisions free of bias. EY Oceania Value Realised Scorecard 2025, p. 20, EY Australia Gender Pay Gap Report 2026, p. 3.
Alongside those commitments, EY’s Australian careers page identifies a target of 40% women in partnership by 2027 and names leadership initiatives intended to advance women. It separately describes Rediscover as supporting all employees returning from family leave. EY Australia: Gender.
Atlas asks EY to explain how its representation objectives operate at the point where an individual seeks an opportunity.
Does sex affect eligibility, access, priority or selection? If so, how is that reflected in the promise of equal opportunity?
The answer should be available to candidates and employees before they rely on that promise.
2. What the maths says
EY’s FY25 Oceania scorecard reports 774 partners, including 251 women. The remaining 523 are partners not reported as women. Women therefore represented 32.43% of that partnership. These are the counts used below. EY Oceania Value Realised Scorecard 2025, pp. 19–20.
If partnership size remains 774
40% × 774 = 309.6.
At least 310 partners must be women to meet or exceed 40%.
That means:
- At least 59 more women than the reported 251.
- No more than 464 partners in the remaining category, compared with 523 at the starting point.
If the remaining category stays at 523
523 ÷ 60% = 871.67.
The minimum whole-person total is 872 partners, including 349 women.
That means:
- At least 98 additional women partners.
- At least 98 additional partnership positions overall.
- Partnership growth of approximately 12.66% from 774.
These scenarios use the FY25 counts and the published 40% objective. The second scenario holds the other category at 523; additional partners in that category would require further growth in women partners to maintain 40%.
The target requires a material change in partnership composition. EY should explain the recruitment, promotion, admission, retention and departure patterns through which it intends to achieve that change.
The next calculation concerns individual opportunity:
Selection rate by sex = candidates selected ÷ eligible candidates considered.
EY should publish those rates for comparable candidates, alongside time to advancement and the treatment of experience and career breaks. Representation percentages describe who is in the partnership. Selection rates and operational rules explain how people get there.
3. What the law says and how EY explains compliance
For Australian employment, section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 addresses discrimination in recruitment, employment conditions, promotion, training and other benefits. Section 17 addresses admission to and treatment within partnerships of six or more partners. These protections cover discrimination against men as well as women. Sex Discrimination Act 1984, sections 14 and 17.
Section 7D authorises special measures taken for the purpose of achieving substantive equality. Measures meeting that provision are not discrimination under the sections it specifies. Section 7D also ceases to authorise measures for a purpose once that purpose has been achieved. This is a legal mechanism for differential treatment, with requirements that must be met. Section 7D, Australian Human Rights Commission guidance.
If EY relies on special measures, an exemption or another legal provision, it should identify that basis and explain its application.
Atlas asks EY:
- Which practices use sex as an eligibility or decision-making factor?
- What legal provision supports each practice?
- What evidence establishes the inequality each measure is intended to address?
- How does EY assess whether the measure meets the relevant legal requirements?
- What review process determines whether its purpose has been achieved and the measure should end or change?
The legislation above concerns Australia. EY should identify the applicable national and state or territory rules for each practice across its Oceania operations.
A general assurance of legal compliance does not explain whether candidates face sex-neutral rules. EY should explain both its legal basis and the practical meaning of equal opportunity under its policies.
4. What we believe
Atlas believes men should have fair access to employment, development and advancement, and should be told clearly whenever sex affects those opportunities.
A numerical target describes a desired outcome. It is not a substitute for explaining how an eligible person is assessed.
Where access to a career pathway is restricted by sex, the distinction is part of the opportunity itself. Where a target influences selection or priority, that influence should be disclosed before candidates commit their time and employees invest years pursuing advancement.
The consequences can extend beyond one decision. If a man’s advancement is delayed because sex affects selection, the delay can affect remuneration, seniority, leadership experience, client opportunities and competitiveness in later rounds.
EY should publish the rules and outcomes needed to assess those consequences. The responsibility for explaining the system belongs with the organisation operating it.
5. What we want: upfront disclosure
Atlas asks EY to place a clear statement in relevant recruitment materials, programme eligibility information, promotion guidance and partnership communications.
The statement should explain:
- Whether sex affects eligibility, assessment, shortlisting, prioritisation or selection.
- How representation targets influence each stage.
- Which development or return-to-work opportunities have sex-specific eligibility.
- The legal basis for each distinction.
- What EY’s analysis shows about selection rates and progression for comparable men and women.
Proposed disclosure format for EY to complete
EY pursues gender representation objectives, including its published target of 40% women in Oceania partnership by 2027.
In this opportunity, sex [does/does not] affect eligibility, access, assessment, priority or selection. The applicable rules are [specify the rules and stages affected].
Where sex-specific treatment applies, the legal basis is [identify the provision and explain how its requirements are met].
Our analysis of selection and progression outcomes is available at [link to data and methodology]. You can request a written explanation of how these rules apply to this opportunity from [contact].
The bracketed fields require EY’s answers. This is Atlas’s proposed disclosure format, not a statement issued by EY.
Candidates should receive the explanation before applying. Employees should receive it before entering development, promotion or partnership processes.
6. Changes Atlas demands from EY
Atlas calls on EY to make access and assessment fair in practice, including:
- Applying clear, consistent standards to comparable candidates.
- Opening development, sponsorship and supported career pathways to men who meet the relevant needs and criteria.
- Reviewing sex-based restrictions or preferences and removing those that cannot be justified against the applicable requirements and evidence.
- Examining whether target-related decisions defer men’s advancement or create cumulative disadvantage.
- Publishing the changes it is willing to make, the intended timetable and how their effects will be measured.
Transparency allows people to understand the rules. Fairer policy and practice address the underlying treatment.
7. What numbers and evidence we ask EY to publish
EY’s 2026 Australian gender pay gap report describes data-driven inclusion plans, analysis of hiring trends and work to track promotion, retention, hiring and pay outcomes. Those activities provide a practical starting point for answering this case. EY Australia Gender Pay Gap Report 2026, p. 3.
Atlas asks EY to publish:
- Eligible candidate numbers and selection rates by sex at relevant career stages.
- Internal promotion and external partnership admission rates.
- Mean and median time to advancement for comparable candidates.
- How active service, performance, parental leave, other career breaks and external experience are assessed.
- Eligibility and participation figures for sex-specific programmes, including the current status of Reconnect and equivalent provision for men.
- Whether representation targets influence candidate pools, shortlists, tie-breaks, recommendations or final decisions.
- Partner admissions and departures by sex, with explanations of how these contribute to the 40% objective.
- The legal basis and review criteria for any sex-specific treatment.
- EY’s own analysis of the effect on men over successive selection rounds.
EY can answer this case with evidence.
If EY maintains that its sex-based targets and programs do not disadvantage men, it should publish the relevant candidate, selection, promotion and progression data and explain how those measures operate in practice.
A statement of good intentions, a commitment to equality or an assurance of legal compliance does not answer the practical question.
The question is whether being male affects access to opportunity.
If the answer is no, the data should demonstrate that.
If the answer is yes, candidates and employees should be told clearly, and Atlas calls on EY to address the unequal treatment and explain what changes it is willing to make.
8. An invitation to meaningful dialogue
Atlas welcomes constructive, evidence-based communication about these findings, the disclosure we seek and the changes we encourage.
We invite EY to provide relevant information, identify factual or analytical errors with supporting evidence and discuss practical improvements.
Substantive responses will be published alongside the case where publication is permitted. Atlas will assess new evidence, correct factual errors and update its findings where warranted.
If sex affects opportunity, explain how. If a legal provision permits the distinction, identify it. Give candidates and employees the information before asking them to commit their careers.
Organisation response
No correspondence has yet been sent to EY and no response has been received.
Substantive responses will be published here where publication is permitted.
Updated 18 September 2026 using Atlas’s case-study framework, with the calculation, legal questions, proposed disclosure and invitation to respond presented together.