DEI Really Is for Everyone

Key Takeaways

• Employers have recently prevailed in several cases across the country in which plaintiffs attacked diversity training and other DEI-related initiatives in the workplace. Decisions have indicated that many courts do not consider these trainings to be violations of federal antidiscrimination laws.
• Many of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits arose after employers responded to the racial events of 2020 in various ways, including conducting trainings on concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias.
• Finding that plaintiffs failed to prove that the trainings met the threshold to establish a hostile work environment claim, courts have consistently ruled in employers’ favor.
• The decisions are a reminder that employers should continue to evaluate their DEI programs, including employee trainings, while at the same time recognizing the current legal standards.

More courts are siding with employers in Title VII suits related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training. With greater attention on DEI efforts by employers after the federal government’s recent executive actions and policy statements, employers may be evaluating the risks related to diversity and anti-bias training. On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance documents stating that diversity training may create a hostile work environment and, accordingly, might violate Title VII. We summarized that guidance here.

However, employers have prevailed in recent court decisions in which plaintiffs have attacked diversity training and similar workplace discussions. Diversity training also was the subject of a 2020 executive order, which sought to ban federal contractors from conducting diversity training related to “divisive topics.” A federal court thwarted the effort, finding that the ban violated First Amendment speech protections. See Santa Cruz Lesbian & Gay Cmty. Ctr. v. Trump, 508 F. Supp. 3d 521, 542 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their First Amendment claim grounded in Section 4 of the Executive Order.”). Similarly, courts have pushed back on blanket positions that diversity training violates the law. Rather, in many cases, courts considering diversity training have determined that such training does not rise to the level of actionable harassment in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.

Below, we summarize the most recent decisions:

De Piero v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. CV 23-2281, 2025 WL 723029 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2025).

De Piero involved a white former university professor’s claims against his former employer, a state university, for violations of Title VII, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. Id. at *1. The events underlying De Piero’s claims included several events, such as a campus-wide Zoom conversation about the shooting of George Floyd, an email regarding the university’s commemoration of Juneteenth, and an email invitation to a professional development meeting centered around racism in writing assessments and antiracist approaches to teaching and learning. Id. *1.

During the campus conversation about the George Floyd shooting, Penn State’s then-assistant vice provost for educational equity delivered a presentation about racial justice and raising awareness about the shooting. Id. at *3 De Piero argued that the presentation exemplified “PSU’s race-essentialist stereotypes.” Id. at *4. Two weeks after the campus conversation, the school sent an email to the campus listserv describing the origins of Juneteenth and ways that people could support racial justice. Id. at *4. De Piero complained that the university’s commemoration of Juneteenth singled him out because of his race and insinuated that “white supremacy was or is a reality” at Penn State. Id. Further, during a meeting about professional development, the university invited a racial justice scholar to discuss racism in writing assessments. Id. at *6. De Piero alleged that he was deeply offended by the author’s scholarship and claimed that the discourse “enforced a raft of stereotypes” about white people. Id. at *7. He argued that these events, among others which occurred over the course of 3 1/2 years, created a racially hostile work environment. Id. at *1.

The district court dismissed the claims on summary judgment and found that, as a matter of law, the allegations did not establish a hostile work environment claim. Id. at *21. De Piero alleged that the actions met the severe and pervasive standard and, therefore, merited a trial on that basis. Id. Rejecting this claim, the district court analyzed the legal tests and facts and held that, “no reasonable jury could determine that the twelve incidents at issue here constitute ‘a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language’ that warrants his hostile work environment to go to trial.” Id. *21.

Young v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 94 F.4th 1242 (10th Cir. 2024).

In Young, a former employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections alleged that the state agency’s mandatory DEI training violated his rights under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on his race. Id. at 144. Specifically, Young, who is white, alleged that the training “demeaned” him on the basis of his race and “promoted divisive racial and political theories that would harm his interaction with other corrections’ personnel and inmates.” Id. According to Young’s complaints, the training involved discussions of white fragility, intersectionality, and equity, among other topics he found objectionable. Id. at 1245–48.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the case, and, upon Young’s appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Id. at 1248–49, 44. In so holding, the Tenth Circuit found that the training was not sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Title VII. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Young’s Equal Protection claim on the basis that he lacked standing given that he was no longer employed by the Department of Corrections. Id. at 1256.

The Tenth Circuit panel observed that “race-based training programs can create hostile workplaces when official policy is combined with ongoing stereotyping and explicit or implicit expectations of discriminatory treatment.” Id. at 1245. However, the training that Young received did not meet that standard because it occurred once, did not create an “ongoing presence permeating the workplace,” and did not trigger race-based harassing conduct or comments. Id. Young's concerns about potential long-term implications of the training on hiring, security, or other workplace conditions were too speculative to be actionable. Id.

Diemert v. City of Seattle, No. 2:22-CV-1640, 2025 WL 446753, (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2025).

In Diemert, a Washington federal court ruled in favor of the city of Seattle after a white former employee argued that the city’s DEI initiatives created a hostile work environment by “infusing race into all City functions” and “reducing him to an embodiment of his race” in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Id. at *1. Diemert also alleged that the city discriminated and retaliated against him when he complained of the alleged harassment. Id. Between 2017 and 2019, Diemert attended three required DEI classes that involved presentations and discussions about race. Id. at *2. After the trainings, he alleged that he was subjected to racially pejorative comments on numerous occasions and argued that the city’s initiative laid the foundation for the racial harassment. Id. at *3-*8.

In granting summary judgment in favor of the city as to Diemert’s hostile work environment claim, the court explained that the antidiscrimination trainings were not per se unlawful and that Diemert failed to factually demonstrate that the trainings harassed him personally on account of his race. Id. at *10. The court explained that “exposure to material that discusses race does not by itself create an unlawful hostile work environment. ‘Training on concepts such as white privilege, white fragility, implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important conversations about how to form a healthy and inclusive working environment.’” Id. (quoting De Piero v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 711 F. Supp. 3d 410, 424 (E.D. Pa. 2024)). Regarding Diemert’s discrimination and retaliation claims, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the city because Diemert failed to show a question of fact as to whether the city took an adverse employment action against him. Id. at *15.

Vavra v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 688 F. Supp. 3d 758, 772 (N.D. Ill. 2023), aff'd, 106 F.4th 702 (7th Cir. 2024).

In Vavra, an Illinois federal district court granted summary judgment to an employer after a former employee alleged he was fired for complaining about an implicit bias training. Id. at 768. The employee argued that his employer retaliated against him by terminating his employment after the employee opposed the training based on his belief that it was inherently racist. Id. The court explained that the employee’s belief that the training was discriminatory was not objectively reasonable and, thus, could not be considered a protected activity. Id. 770. A plaintiff’s belief that he or she opposed an unlawful practice is objectively reasonable when the complaint involves alleged discrimination that is prohibited by Title VII. Id. at 769. In this case, the employee failed to demonstrate the training itself was racially discriminatory or motivated by racial animus. Id.

The court also explained that no causal connection existed between the employee’s complaint of discrimination and the employer’s decision to terminate his employment. Id. at 772. See also Norgren v. Minnesota Dep't of Hum. Servs., No. CV 22-489 ADM/TNL, 2023 WL 35903, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 4, 2023), aff'd, 96 F.4th 1048 (8th Cir. 2024)(“Requiring all employees to undergo diversity training does not amount to abusive working conditions and does not plausibly show that DHS imposed across the board training with the intention of forcing Norgren to quit.”).

Takeaways

Employers conducting diversity training should consider these five steps:

1. Review training materials—especially older content—to ensure that they comply with federal and state law. Employers should critically examine and assess materials presented by diversity training suppliers to ensure compliance.
2. Ensure training materials discuss inclusivity and strengthening workplace culture among employees rather than targets, quotas, or goals related to hiring and promotion.
3. Reinforce company policies against harassment, bullying, and retaliation to help prevent antagonism among employees and to assist in maintaining a professional work environment.
4. Review policies and consider seeking legal counsel before tying diversity training to performance evaluations or other employment decisions. Monitor the changing legal landscape in the context of anti-bias training and other DEI-related initiatives. While courts have ruled in favor of employers, other cases remain ongoing and ultimately could influence the law of the land in relation to diversity training.

As direct attacks on DEI have risen, it has been up to the courts to determine the appropriate confines of the law under Title VII and other laws. Often, these decisions run counter to blanket statements that all efforts to foster inclusion in the workplace violate the law. Recent decisions regarding challenges to diversity training highlight the complex landscape employers face and bring to light how employers should be vigilant and precise in recognizing the legal guardrails in their inclusion efforts.