Dive Brief:
- A Colorado corrections officer failed to plausibly allege his employer’s DEI training led to a hostile work environment, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Monday.
- The worker had been required to attend a training program dealing with “racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities,” according to the court. While he alleged the training contained “disturbing generalizations” about White people and had an effect on his day-to-day work, the court disagreed, finding his complaints failed to meet the “extremely high” bar for a hostile work environment charge.
- The lawsuit garnered significant attention as an early test case of the theory that DEI training leads to a hostile work environment, attracting amicus briefs from numerous conservative legal groups and more than a dozen red states in support of the worker.
Dive Insight:
The plaintiff’s argument rested on several allegations added after a Colorado district court held that the DEI training alone was not sufficient to trigger liability. The 10th Circuit considered both the old and new allegations.
First, the court considered the training itself, which included a glossary of racial terms like “white fragility” and “white exceptionalism,” meeting guidance suggesting leaders should “let less powerful people speak first” and recommendations of videos that contained generalized discussion about how White people view race.
The 10th Circuit didn’t dispute the content of the training but found the worker could not sufficiently argue the training or its aftermath created an abusive work environment by altering the terms, conditions or privilege or his job.
For example, while he may have found the glossary offensive, it did not appear to affect his job responsibilities. Similarly, he did not explain how the meeting guidance led to an abusive workplace. And while the worker may have found the videos offensive, “he doesn’t say how the content affected his job responsibilities, interactions with fellow employees, or career advancement,” the court said.
The 10th Circuit was further unconvinced by the new allegations.
The worker said the corrections department was committed to the training, but the training itself said the contents may change and “be modified on an ongoing basis,” the court said. Further, while the worker said he was required to endorse the program’s ideology, the training itself included “admonitions” that employees didn’t need to change their values or beliefs and should discuss the program’s content.
The worker also said supervisors relied on the training for disciplinary decisions but could only point to one instance of a supervisor allegedly reversing a disciplinary action against a worker of a different race after the worker complained about racism. He did not say whether the accusation was warranted, whether the incident took place before or after the training or how it affected his work conditions, however, the court said.
Finally, the officer alleged the Colorado Department of Corrections failed to investigate his complaints. But while an employer may incur liability for failing to investigate an actionable hostile environment, it “may merely ‘preserve … the very circumstances that were the subject of the complaint’,” the court said, leaving “‘an employee no worse off than before the complaint was filed.’”
William Trachman, an attorney for the plaintiff, said his team was evaluating filing a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We are disappointed by the Court’s decision, and continue to believe that [the plaintiff] suffered a hostile work environment when the Colorado Department of Corrections’ official training asserted that he was a white supremacist, and needed to treat prisoners and his colleagues differently based on race,” he told HR Dive.
The impact of DEI training is an emerging area of employment law, as more majority-group plaintiffs bring allegations of Title VII violations. In certain cases, plaintiffs have made headway in the courts.
After a New York City educator sued the city’s Department of Education for mandating a DEI training that allegedly resulted in consistent, targeted harassment, a district court granted the employer summary judgment. The 2nd Circuit reversed, however, finding a reasonable jury could determine she experienced racial discrimination, a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. That case settled out of court, according to a December filing.