A unanimous federal appeals court ruled Monday that a jury should decide whether created a racially hostile work environment for a white employee, while emphasizing that federal anti-discrimination law protects workers regardless of race.
The three-judge panel did not rule on whether Seattle’s DEI programs violated the Constitution or federal anti-discrimination law. Instead, it found that the allegations were enough to let a jury decide whether the way the city carried out those initiatives created a racially hostile work environment. The ruling leaves the larger constitutional questions about Seattle’s race-based programs unanswered.
“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, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
“Accordingly, race-conscious training programs may violate Title VII when they create a racially hostile work environment.”
TRUMP ADMIN’S PUSH TO SCRAP DEI IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES LANDMARK STEP WITH NEW HIRING RULE
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, including being asked by supervisors what he could contribute “being a straight white male,” being told it was “impossible” to discriminate against white people, and being encouraged to give up a leadership role so a person of color could be promoted.
He also attended DEI trainings where speakers allegedly said “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 who argued the case, said the panel ruled only that Diemert lacked standing and did not decide whether Seattle’s race-based affinity groups and training programs were constitutional.
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS ASSOCIATION OVER RACE-BASED BOARD QUOTA
“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 said the ruling shows that Title VII does not give protections to racial-equity training when it becomes the 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,” D’Agostino told Fox News Digital.
The court ruled the case wasn’t about any one remark or training session. Instead, it concluded a jury should decide whether the alleged comments, DEI trainings and workplace incidents, taken together over several years, created a racially hostile work environment.
“The evidence was sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe that his
