Decision Alert: Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections

INTRODUCTION

On May 11, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision in Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections,affirming the dismissal of hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims arising from a mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) training. This is the latest ruling in a series of cases currently working their way through the courts on the issue of whether DEI training creates a hostile work environment.

ISSUE

Whether a mandatory employer racial sensitivity training program, along with its alleged aftermath, gives rise to a hostile work environment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joshua Young is a White man who was employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). CDOC required plaintiff to attend DEI training, specifically a mandatory training addressing racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities. Plaintiff regarded the training as extreme, alleging that it created a hostile work environment for White individuals like himself. Plaintiff specifically alleged that certain terms were presented in a “grossly offensive language, targeted at Caucasian employees specifically.” This included generalizations about “the role of all White people in perpetuating the mistreatment of racial minorities.” The plaintiff pointed to a glossary allegedly used in the training, defining “race as an unscientific concept used to justify White people’s oppression of minorities, white exceptionalism as a belief by some Whites that they aren’t racist even though they perpetuate white supremacy, and white fragility as a White person’s discomfort and defensiveness when confronted by information about racial injustice.” Plaintiff further alleged that the “trainings also directed further insults at Caucasians” and that the training suggested to his colleagues that they need not intervene if a Caucasian person interrupted a non-Caucasian person due to their “status and power.” Further, the plaintiff claimed the supplemental training materials were racially discriminatory and motivated by racial stereotypes because the video recommendations accompanying the training were about discriminatory housing and intersectionality. These videos allegedly contained “generalized discussion about White people’s attitudes toward race.”

In the aftermath of the training, the plaintiff alleged (i) he was stressed about how the training would be applied due to the alleged negative treatment of White people in the training; (ii) the training created a culture of suspicion and distrust; and (iii) his colleagues used the race training to promote racially discriminatory beliefs in the workplace.

The Tenth Circuit had previously considered this plaintiff’s claims in 2024. In an earlier decision, the Tenth Circuit had been highly critical of the DEI training at issue, but nevertheless dismissed the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, while offering suggestions of the types of allegations concerning mandatory DEI training that might be sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim. On remand, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The District of Colorado dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding on the hostile work environment claim that plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege that the DEI training and resulting harassment was so pervasive or severe as to alter a term or condition of his employment. 

HOLDING

The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the hostile work environment claim. The Tenth Circuit found that the plaintiff did not overcome the “extremely high” burden of showing that his workplace was “overtly hostile,” which requires a showing that the workplace is “permeated” with “more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity.”  

Supporting the lack of “severe and pervasive” harassment, the Tenth Circuit noted that the plaintiff did not allege that the DEI training occurred more than once, failed to plead any facts suggesting that he had experienced negative feedback in the months following the training or that his supervisors had discussed the training, and did not allege that anyone said that he was racist after the training. Although the plaintiff alleged the training caused him to “second-guess his decisions about using force and screening for contraband,” the Court found these reflected “only hesitation—not alteration of the job” sufficient to create a hostile work environment.

The Tenth Circuit reiterated its earlier holding that a single incident of DEI training is not enough to allege a hostile work environment. Here, the plaintiff’s allegations of workplace conditions after the training did not cross the “extremely high” threshold to create a workplace “permeated with discriminatory behavior.”

OTHER CASES CHALLENGING DEI TRAINING

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections is one of several cases alleging that DEI training created a hostile work environment. In Chislett v. New York City Department of Education, the Second Circuit held that a white employee had demonstrated sufficient disputes of material fact to deny summary judgment to the plaintiff’s employer on the issue of whether DEI training created a hostile work environment. The plaintiff in Chislett alleged multiple instances of hostility after the DEI training¾co-workers telling her that she was acting with white privilege or making race-based judgments, subordinates calling her “racist” and “white and fragile,” and comments such as “How dare you approach me out of your white privilege!” and “You’re coming from the position of white privilege and white supremacy.” The Second Circuit held that a reasonable juror could find these charged comments were not merely “episodic or isolated” but “continuous and concentrated,” and that there was a consistent pattern of harassment sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim.

Other Courts of Appeals are currently considering the issue of whether DEI training creates a hostile work environment. Oral argument has occurred in the Ninth Circuit case of Diemert v. City of Seattle and the Third Circuit case of De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University.  

CONCLUSION

Whether a hostile work environment claim based on DEI training will succeed is a fact-specific inquiry that will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. Whether an employer can be held liable for hostile work environment based on DEI training will largely depend on the frequency and severity of post-training comments made towards, and interactions with, the employee.