A unanimous federal appeals court ruled Monday that a jury should decide whether Seattle’s DEI initiatives 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 hostile work environment claims must be decided at trial,” D’Agostino said.
A spokesperson for the city of Seattle said they are reviewing the decision and discussing potential next steps for the City.
WHITE DEVELOPER SUES BALTIMORE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL CLAIMING HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF HIS RACE
Ilya Shapiro, of the Manhattan Institute, said the decision leaves constitutional challenges to similar DEI programs on the table despite the standing ruling.
“Although the court affirmed the dismissal of Diemert’s equal-protection claim, it did so because he didn’t present evidence sufficient to show personal injury, not because equal-protection claims aren’t viable,” Shapiro told Fox News Digital.
Shapiro said the “race-conscious” programs are standing on “dubious legal ground.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
The decision also reinforced that federal anti-discrimination law applies equally to employees regardless of race. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services , the panel noted that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General for Iowa, said Monday’s ruling is a major wake-up call for DEI classes and trainings across the country, arguing that they breed hostile work environments.
“I think the easiest way to think about it is if the same stuff was happening, but he was another race other than white,” Wessan told Fox News Digital. “How obvious would it have been that that was a hostile environment? And I think in this case, the answer is, it would have been pretty obvious.”
“I’m not surprised that the hostile environment claim can go forward. And that’s really important too, because a lot of these DEI policies across the country do create hostile work environments for white employees. And for a long time, there was no pushback against that.”
