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 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 case was brought by Joshua Diemert, who worked for Seattle’s Human Services Department. His Title VII hostile work environment claim can now proceed for a jury to weigh the facts.
Join the Discussion
What the court did and did not decide
The panel’s decision was limited to what claims can move forward, not whether Seattle’s DEI policies are lawful or unlawful on the merits.
Chief Judge Mary Murguia wrote that: 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
and that Accordingly, race-conscious training programs may violate Title VII when they create a racially hostile work environment.
The question sent back is whether the workplace became racially hostile based on what Diemert alleges occurred over time.
Standing and two tracks
The court separated Diemert’s claims into two different tracks and treated them differently.
1) The Title VII claim
The panel revived Diemert’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII and said a jury should decide whether Seattle’s DEI initiatives, as carried out, created a racially hostile work environment.
2) The Equal Protection claim
On the constitutional side, the panel did not reach the merits. 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.
D'Agostino said: 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,
adding: It simply concluded that Mr. Diemert had not established the personal injury necessary for the court to reach that constitutional question in his case.
What the jury will weigh
The court said the case was not about any one remark or any one 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.
Diemert alleged 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.
D'Agostino characterized the record this way: The evidence was sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe that his hostile work environment claims must be decided at trial
.
Title VII and race
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.
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,
she said.
What it means beyond Seattle
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General for Iowa, described Monday’s ruling as 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 said. 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.
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
, he said. Shapiro added that the race-conscious
programs are standing on dubious legal ground.
What happens next
The ruling allows Diemert’s hostile work environment claim to go forward for a jury to decide.
Seattle, through a spokesperson, said the city is reviewing the decision and discussing potential next steps.
Bottom line
The panel did not decide whether Seattle’s DEI programs are lawful or unlawful on the merits. It found the allegations were enough to let a jury decide whether the way the city implemented its initiatives created a racially hostile work environment for a White employee, while also stressing that Title VII protections apply regardless of race.