Dr. Gebru originally asked, as part of her complaint, that the names of the people reviewing her work be revealed. Does that sound particularly ethical to you? At best she wanted to talk to them face to face about their criticisms. At worst (and this is more likely if you ask me) she just wanted to throw -isms in their faces.
Just to make sure people don't forget that aspect of what appears to be the root of this situation.
Yes, because they were not peer reviewers, and they had no business reviewing the paper in the first place. She went through the process for internal publication review (which does not involve anonymous reviewers, any more than a code review or a preparing-to-open-source-something review or a branding-guidelines review involves anonymous reviewers), and the paper was approved, and then management told her there was a secret extra process and she couldn't know who was involved in the process.
The paper was eventually anonymously peer reviewed by other scientists at other institutions in a process run by the journal (not by anyone's manager) without incident.
Just to make sure people don't forget that aspect of what appears to be the root of this situation.