Hostile Work Environment Claims Aimed at DEI Gain Early Traction

Early-stage court victories for White employees’ DEI program-related hostile work environment claims have cracked open the door to more use of this legal tactic, as employers brace for more suits over diversity initiatives.

The latest such case to inch forward is a federal lawsuit by Danielle Johnson, an Oregon Department of Environmental Quality employee, who said the agency’s diversity, equity, and inclusion program created workplace “anti-White bias” and led to her being demoted and vilified as racist.

Her hostile work environment claims survived a motion-to-dismiss ruling earlier this month, similar to cases brought by former Penn State Professor Zack De Piero and former City of Seattle employee Joshua Diemert. Like Johnson, those employees alleged race-related hostility at work that extended outside of DEI training sessions themselves.

The hostile work environment cases add to a bevy of legal challenges and public scrutiny against DEI programs—ranging from workplace anti-bias training to fellowships, hiring, and business funding programs designed to boost women and minorities. The anti-DEI movement is expected to grow as Donald Trump returns to the White House, bringing advisors, Cabinet picks, and a vice president who have vocally opposed DEI.

Ultimately winning a lawsuit like Johnson’s should require extreme examples of repeated racial harassment and hostility, beyond a few training session remarks, said David Glasgow, executive director for the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU Law. Employers have ample room to offer training that promotes inclusion thoughtfully without violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he said.

“In order to make out a claim that’s grounded in a hostile work environment, the harassment needs to be severe and pervasive,” Glasgow said. “Just having a standard anti-bias training in the workplace of the kind that many organizations have, that’s not going to give rise to a claim.”

The incoming Trump administration also increases the likelihood the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will bring cases alleging DEI-related workplace bias, although the effort will be complicated with a new GOP chair paired with a likely Democratic panel majority until 2026.

“The risks and threats feel much greater to companies from the DEI opponents than from DEI proponents,” said Lauren J. Hartz, an attorney at Jenner & Block who has defended against challenges to diversity programs. “Companies are concerned about how investigative resources, enforcement actions, and really just the bully pulpit could be used to make an example out of ‘woke companies.’”

Despite risks, workplace inclusivity efforts remain important and can help employers comply with anti-discrimination laws, said Democrat Jocelyn Samuels, current EEOC vice chair.

“We have a history of systemic inequities that are based on race and sex among other characteristics, and Title VII does not constrain employers” from addressing those problems “carefully and intentionally,” she said.

Pervasive Hostility

Diemert claimed Seattle’s racial justice initiative created a pervasive focus on race at work. A division manager once asked him “what could a straight white male possibly offer our department” and a director-level employee told him it’s impossible to be racist toward a White person, his court filings said.

De Piero also alleged persistent, racially charged messages and trainings at Penn State, including an email from a diversity office staffer instructing White employees to “feel terrible” about internalized White supremacy along with a training on race-conscious grading.

Collectively the cases suggest “courts are coming to understand that the messaging in and of itself can create a hostile environment,” said James Kerwin, senior counsel at Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents Johnson.

In Johnson’s case, unlike the others, the employee also argues racial preferences allegedly used by the Oregon agency created a hostile work environment for anyone outside the preferred groups, Kerwin said.

“You are at a disadvantage solely because of the color of your skin, and that is hostile,” he said.

US Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo recommended dismissing Johnson’s hostile work environment claims, finding she didn’t adequately allege severe and pervasive harassment, as her complaint focused on “disagreement with written DEI materials” disseminated at work.

US District Judge Amy Baggio disagreed, keeping the hostile work environment claims alive, while dismissing Johnson’s retaliation claims. Johnson alleged coworkers made comments such as White voices weren’t “worth listening to,” and that it’s legitimate to discriminate against White people, Baggio found.

Though the allegations cleared the initial bar for pleading a hostile work environment, it’s too early to decide whether the claims will win on the merits, she said.

Win Some, Lose Some

Besides hostile work environment, employees also have challenged employers under the First Amendment for forcing them to listen to and affirm DEI concepts.

Conversely, employers that support DEI training used the First Amendment to challenge a Florida law restricting certain workplace diversity training concepts, winning at the Eleventh Circuit in March.

More straightforward job bias lawsuits also have proliferated under Title VII as majority-group employees target DEI programs to mixed results.

A former Honeywell International Inc. engineer lost the appeal of his Title VII retaliation claims to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in July, after he was fired for refusing to participate in mandatory DEI training. Three Trump-appointed judges said he wrongly assumed the video-based training would be anti-White without watching it.

“Courts get it and recognize that properly conducted training is a vital part of both DEIA work and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws,” Samuels said.

The US Supreme Court could change the Title VII calculus for workers targeting DEI through an Ohio state agency worker’s case claiming her employer favors minority group members.

The court will review the additional burden of proof that some federal circuit courts require of majority-group employees claiming Title VII bias.

“It puts this question in the starkest terms,” Hartz said. “Is it plausible for majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate that they are an oppressed or discriminated against group in workplaces today?”