<p>Many countries of the Global North are currently facing a strong rise in anti-diversity movements fueled by conservative, right-wing parties and authoritarian, probably fascist regimes, which also affects the workplace. However, organizations are insufficiently equipped to deal with increasing diversity-hostility since most policy approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) focus on promotion- and/or prevention-oriented measures. What is missing is a parrying orientation: methodically responding to—sanctioning—diversity-hostile communication, which can even imply the dismissal of employees. At the same time, aiming to promote inclusivity through exclusion decisions makes parrying ethically dilemmatic, and, therefore, contestable. By analyzing the case of the ‘Google Diversity Memo,’ we shed light on how an organization addressed the ethical dilemmas connected to an act of parrying—the decision to dismiss the memo’s author, who criticized Google’s DEI approach for going ‘too far.’ Drawing on a processual understanding of decision communication, we investigate public communicative acts challenging and justifying the dismissal and Google’s respective policy approach more generally. We show that organizational authoritative texts such as a code of conduct represent particularly effective decision premises to challenge or justify acts of parrying. We argue that addressing the ethical dilemmas connected to parrying requires establishing overarching rule-based procedures on how to respond to diversity-hostile communication which contributes to the overall ethical infrastructure of an organization.</p>