Ninth Circuit Holds DEI Training May Support a Hostile Work Environment Claim

Decision Alert: Diemert v. City of Seattle, No. 25-1188 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2026)

On September 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in Joshua A. Diemert v. City of Seattle, No. 25-1188. As to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the Ninth Circuit held that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) trainings Plaintiff attended, considered together with a series of subsequent workplace incidents, were sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff experienced a racially hostile work environment. This is the latest ruling in a series of cases on the issue of whether DEI training can create a hostile work environment.

Issue

Whether a racial sensitivity training program, alongside repeated comments and incidents following the training, can give rise to a hostile work environment claim under Title VII and Washington anti-discrimination law.

Background

Plaintiff Joshua Diemert is a white man who worked for the Human Services Department of the City of Seattle. As part of his employment, he participated in the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (“RSJI”), which aims to “undo institutionalized racism in the workplace” through a series of required trainings on racial justice and by facilitating racially aligned affinity groups. Plaintiff claims that the RSJI classified employees by their race and, when coupled with several workplace incidents described in further detail below, created a racially hostile work environment.

Plaintiff resigned from the City of Seattle and commenced action against the City in 2022, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims in violation of both state and federal civil rights laws. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appealed.

Hostile Work Environment Claim

The Ninth Circuit recognized that workplace training programs designed to address racial barriers are not inherently discriminatory, and that Title VII does not prohibit employers from discussing historical and ongoing discrimination against persons of color.

In assessing Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim on appeal, the only disputed element was whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Ninth Circuit noted that courts assess the totality of the circumstances, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” No single factor is dispositive, and “[t]he required level of severity varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.”

Plaintiff identified 10 separate instances of evidence of an objectively hostile work environment:

1. In 2015, Plaintiff was discouraged from applying for a supervisory role, a person of color was hired for the position, and was required to perform the responsibilities of the position without receiving the commensurate title or pay.
2. In 2015, an HSD [Human Services Department] manager asked Plaintiff, “[W]hat could you possibly offer our department . . ., being a straight white male?”
3. In 2016, manager Gloria Hatcher-Mays told Plaintiff ‘that it was “impossible” to be racist toward “white people.”’
4. In 2017, supervisor Tina Inay encouraged Plaintiff to step down from his lead role in the department, in part to allow a person of color to take his position.
5. In 2017, a coworker called Plaintiff a “racist” and told him “that ‘white people’ are to be blamed for ‘all atrocities’ and that the United States was built upon a system of ‘white supremacy.”’
6. In 2019, Plaintiff overheard RSJI trainers say that “white people are cannibals,” that “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and that “white people are like the devil.”
7. Between 2019 and 2020, supervisor Shamsu Said called Plaintiff a “colonist,” “physically accosted” Plaintiff, accused Plaintiff of having “white privilege,” and informed Plaintiff that he was “to blame for all injustices in the United States.”
8. In 2020, coworkers told Plaintiff that he “did not have a right to speak about black oppression” and accused him of using his “white privilege” to discredit their lived experiences.
9. In 2021, a new coworker stated that his “[s]elf and personal care” included “being around Black and brown folks.”
10. In 2021, Plaintiff was criticized by coworkers after Plaintiff defended critical race theory bans in connection with a discussion of the Tulsa Race Massacre.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that these incidents were sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue as to the existence of a racially hostile work environment. Importantly, the Ninth Circuit clarified that “[v]iewed in isolation, the incidents at issue here might not be sufficient.” Indeed, the court recognized that it has previously held that comparatively isolated remarks were not severe enough to create a hostile work environment, including referring to a Chinese coworker as “China Man” while mocking his appearance, Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003); telling a Hispanic coworker that “Hispanics do good in the field,” Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir, 2003); and referring to a female coworker as a “Madonna,” a “Regina,” and a “castrating bitch,” Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000), were not severe enough incidents to create a hostile work environment.

The Ninth Circuit found that this case was different because Plaintiff presented evidence of numerous incidents over a five-year span. The Ninth Circuit found the frequency and severity of the conduct in Plaintiff’s case comparable to Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2017), where a coworker made repeated racially derogatory comments and harassed him over a period of six years. As in Reynaga, the incidents here referenced Plaintiff’s race, targeted him, caused him to file complaints, required the City to separate him from an allegedly harassing coworker, and occurred over a substantial period of time. The court likewise found the case comparable to the Second Circuit’s decision in Chislett v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 157 F.4th 172 (2d Cir. 2025), where a white woman alleged that racial comments from trainings spilled over into the broader workplace, leading to her removal from supervisory duties, which were then transferred to a subordinate who was a person of color. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a jury could find that Plaintiff experienced a “series of racially offensive statements and generalizations bearing little or no connection to legitimate training efforts, that he was denied or discouraged from pursuing opportunities for advancement on account of his race, and that he received scant support from his superiors when he challenged what he perceived as discriminatory behavior.” The Ninth Circuit explained that where severity is questionable, it is more appropriate to leave the assessment to the fact-finder than for the court to decide the case on summary judgment.

Conclusion

Courts across the United States are currently considering a number of cases alleging that DEI training created a hostile work environment. The Tenth Circuit issued its ruling in Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections in May 2026, affirming the dismissal of hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims arising from a mandatory DEI training. For a more in-depth analysis of that decision, please see this decision alert. In September 2026, the plaintiff in Young filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Tenth’s Circuit’s decision; this remains pending. The Third Circuit is currently considering similar issues in De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University after oral argument was held in March 2026. 

Whether a DEI training can lead to a successful hostile work environment claim remains a fact-specific inquiry. Employers should tie trainings to legitimate goals, avoid generalizations, monitor and respond to training comments and feedback, investigate complaints promptly, and document reasons for employment decisions to put themselves in the best possible position if faced with a hostile work environment claim.