Seattle Man's Hostile Workplace Lawsuit Over DEI Training Revived by Appeals Court

A former Seattle Human Services Department (HSD) employee has had his lawsuit alleging a racially hostile work environment revived by a federal appeals court, which found his claims sufficient to proceed to trial. Joshua Diemert, who worked for HSD from 2013 until his resignation in 2021, sued the city in November 2022, claiming that mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training created a discriminatory workplace.

Diemert's suit was initially dismissed by a district court judge in February 2025. However, a three-judge panel from the federal appeals court, consisting of Democratic appointees, ruled that the alleged incidents were "sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue" for a jury. The judges emphasized that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects all employees from racially hostile work environments, regardless of race.

According to court filings, Diemert, who is white, participated in the city's Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), which aims to "undo institutionalized racism and achieve racial equity." As part of this initiative, employees are required to attend trainings. Diemert alleges that during a November 2019 "Undoing Institutional Racism Workshop," a trainer stated that "all white people are cannibals." Other trainers reportedly claimed that "racism is in white people's DNA" and that "white people are like the devil."

Diemert also claims that colleagues and superiors made racially charged comments and took discriminatory actions. He alleges that coworkers called him a "white supremacist" following comments he made during training sessions. His former manager, Gloria Hatcher-Mays, allegedly told Diemert not to apply for a supervisor position because she sought a candidate who was bilingual and had connections within marginalized communities, ultimately hiring an "inexperienced and unqualified" person of color for the role. Diemert stated he was forced to perform the duties of this position without the corresponding title or pay.

Another manager reportedly asked Diemert, "what could you possibly offer our department..., being a straight white male?" Diemert also recalled a coworker denying utility assistance to an eligible white applicant due to "white privilege." When Diemert raised concerns about this, Hatcher-Mays allegedly "berated him," stating that "it was impossible to be racist toward white people."

Shamsu Said, another superior, allegedly referred to Diemert as a "colonist" with "white privilege" and told him he "was to blame for all injustices in the United States."

While the appeals court revived Diemert's hostile workplace claims, it dismissed his equal protection claim. The court determined that while race-based groups and trainings within the RSJI constituted "explicit racial classifications," Diemert was not personally injured as he was never forced into the "White Caucus" or barred from other trainings.

The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, the same judge who initially dismissed the lawsuit, for further proceedings on the hostile workplace claims. Diemert's attorney, Laura D’Agostino, stated that the ruling "sends a clear message" and expressed anticipation for Diemert to "finally have his day in court."