I object to the term because of this, from the article you linked to:
> In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation.
As companies try to fight historical biases, there will be some from the dominant group that suffer — those that might have been promoted under the old biased system won't be under a new less biased system. Advantages that the dominant group had will naturally be eroded. That's all well and good; an inevitable and desirable consequence of progress in the right direction.
However, if the Yahoo! figures from the article are right, this seems to be a case of active discrimination against male employees, which isn't the same thing at all.
Calling them both "reverse discrimination" elides the difference between those two possible meanings. So I prefer to think of what we're discussing here as active discrimination of no substantive difference to the usual historical discrimination. In Yahoo! some female managers were the dominant group — they had the power — and they used that power to discriminate against male employees to fill the ranks with other women. That's straight-up discrimination.
Of course, the whole thing might be nonsense, but we'll have to wait and see.
The term "reverse discrimination" is one of the biggest examples of modern racist and sexist thought. Using it makes it clear that you don't believe women/non-whites to be equal to white men.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination