Appeals Court Allows White Employee's DEI Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit Against Seattle to Proceed

A federal appeals court has ruled that a jury must decide whether Seattle's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives created a racially hostile work environment for a white employee. The unanimous three-judge panel, including an Obama-appointed judge, emphasized that federal anti-discrimination law protects all workers, regardless of race.

The ruling does not determine whether Seattle's DEI programs violate the Constitution or federal anti-discrimination law. Instead, it found that the employee's allegations are sufficient for a jury to consider the claim. The larger constitutional questions surrounding Seattle's race-based programs remain unresolved.

"Workplace training programs designed to address racial barriers are not inherently discriminatory, and nothing in Title VII prohibits employers from either discussing historical and ongoing discrimination against persons of color or seeking to address such discrimination," wrote Judge Mary Murguia. "Accordingly, race-conscious training programs may violate Title VII when they create a racially hostile work environment."

The employee, Joshua Diemert, who worked for Seattle's Human Services Department, alleged that over several years, he was subjected to repeated race-based comments and workplace incidents. These included supervisors asking what he could contribute "being a straight white male," telling him it was "impossible" to discriminate against white people, and encouraging him to relinquish a leadership role for a person of color.

Diemert also attended DEI trainings where speakers allegedly made statements such as "white people are cannibals," that racism is in "white people's DNA," and that "white people are like the devil."

Laura D'Agostino, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation representing Diemert, stated that the panel ruled only on the standing issue and did not decide the constitutionality of Seattle's race-based affinity groups and training programs. "This decision does not give government employers a green light to classify employees by race. The Ninth Circuit expressly reiterated that government racial classifications are constitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny," D'Agostino said. "It simply concluded that Mr. Diemert had not established the personal injury necessary for the court to reach that constitutional question in his case."

D'Agostino added that the ruling indicates Title VII does not protect racial-equity training when it becomes a source of harassment. "Calling something racial-equity training does not place it outside the protections of federal civil rights law. Employers can address discrimination without creating or tolerating a racially hostile environment for their employees," she told Fox News Digital.

The court determined that the case was not about any single remark or training session but whether the alleged comments, DEI trainings, and workplace incidents, when viewed collectively over several years, created a racially hostile environment. "The evidence was sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe that his hostile work environment claims must be decided at trial," D'Agostino said.

A spokesperson for the city of Seattle indicated that the city is reviewing the decision and considering its next steps.

The ruling also reinforced that federal anti-discrimination law applies equally to all employees, regardless of their race. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the panel noted that Title VII "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs."

Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute commented that the decision leaves constitutional challenges to similar DEI programs available, despite the standing ruling. "Although the court affirmed the dismissal of Diemert's equal-protection claim, it did so because he didn't present evidence sufficient to show personal injury, not because equal-protection claims aren't viable," Shapiro told Fox News Digital, adding that "race-conscious" programs are on "dubious legal ground."

Eric Wessan, Solicitor General for Iowa, described the ruling as a significant wake-up call for DEI classes and trainings nationwide, asserting that they can foster hostile work environments. "I think the easiest way to think about it is if the same stuff was happening, but he was another race other than white. How obvious would it have been that that was a hostile environment? And I think in this case, the answer is, it would have been pretty obvious," Wessan told Fox News Digital. "I'm not surprised that the hostile environment claim can go forward. And that's really important too, because a lot of these DEI policies across the country do create hostile work environments for white employees. And for a long time, there was no pushback against that."