Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—10th Cir.: White corrections worker did not adequately allege HWE from racial sensitivity training, (May 12, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He pointed to a glossary allegedly used in the training that defined the term white fragility.

A white former employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections who had to attend a training program during his employment that addressed racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities failed to show that the training and its aftermath created a hostile work environment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Although the employee objected to the training program’s terminology, he could not show how its glossary, or indeed his disagreement with the program’s advice, rendered the workplace permeated with abuse. He also experienced only a single training session, and the program included admonitions that employees need not change their values or beliefs (Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, No. 25-1068 (10th. Cir. May 11, 2026)).

Department of Corrections. The employee is a white man who used to work for the Colorado Department of Corrections. During his time there, he was required to attend a training program addressing racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities. According to the court, he regarded the program as “so extreme” that it created a discriminatory environment for white employees.

Alleged generalizations and glossary. Among other things, the employee alleged that the training program created “disturbing generalizations” about the role of all white people in perpetuating the mistreatment of racial minorities. He pointed to a glossary used in the training that referred to 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.”

Advice regarding power. Second, he alleged, the training advised leaders to let less powerful people speak first and to treat employees differently based on race.

Recommendations about discriminatory housing and intersectionality. Third, the training included recommendations from videos about discriminatory housing and intersectionality. These videos allegedly contained generalizations about white people’s attitudes toward race.

Prior Tenth Circuit decision and amendment. On a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the training program alone was not enough to trigger liability for a racially hostile work environment (HWE) under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After that holding, however, the employee added allegations about the aftermath of the training program, which the district court again found did not allege sufficient objective facts about his workplace to show it would be deemed hostile by a reasonable employee under the same circumstances.

Another appeal. Now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit again, the employee argued that his allegations about the training program and its aftermath taken together would have created an HWE. The appeals court was unpersuaded.

Original conclusions about program. The Tenth Circuit’s original conclusions about the glossary, the program’s advice, and the videos on housing and intersectionality remained unchanged. The employee objected to the program’s terminology but failed to say how the glossary affected his job responsibilities. He disagreed with its advice regarding race and power relations but failed to explain how that advice rendered the workplace permeated with abuse. And he regarded the videos about discriminatory housing and intersectionality as offensive, but he failed to say how their content affected his job responsibilities, interactions with fellow employees, or career advancement. The appeals court concluded that he simply failed to show how any of these features of the training program rendered the workplace permeated with abuse.

Commitment to training? His new allegations fared similarly. One involved the allegation that the Department of Corrections committed to this kind of training and would continue with the same allegedly racist blueprint in the future. Unpersuaded, the Tenth Circuit noted that the employee experienced only a single training session and then quit four months later. His fears about future programming would not suggest, said the appeals court, that the workplace had turned “overtly hostile” and “permeated with discriminatory behavior” in this four-month period.

Endorsement of “ideology”? He additionally argued that his job required him to endorse the training’s “race-based ideology,” but the training included admonitions that employees did not need to change their values or beliefs and, indeed, should discuss questions and challenges from the training. “Given these admonitions,” observed the court, his allegations did not plausibly allege a pattern of abuse against white employees who disagreed with the training.

Discipline? The employee also argued that supervisors were already acting upon the training in making disciplinary decisions. Here, he referred to an alleged incident involving another officer of a different race who purportedly used a complaint about racism to reverse a disciplinary sanction. The employee did not, however, say whether the accusation of racism was warranted, whether the alleged incident took place after the training, or whether the alleged incident affected his own work conditions. “Absent that information,” said the Tenth Circuit, “one unexplained reversal of discipline against another officer wouldn’t render [the plaintiff’s] job permeated with abuse.”

Security issues? The employee further argued that the training compromised security because white guards might loosen restrictions to avoid accusations of racism. These allegations, as the appeals court had previously found, were too speculative, and the court was similarly unpersuaded by his new allegations that the training caused him to second-guess his own decisions about using force and screening for contraband. His new allegations did not refer to particular instances, observed the appeals court, or suggest that the changes jeopardized security. “Instead, the new allegations reflect only hesitation—not alteration of the job.”

Failure to investigate? Finally, the employee alleged that the Colorado Department of Corrections failed to investigate his allegations about the training. Observing that an employer may incur liability for failing to investigate an actionable hostile environment, the appeals court noted that the employee did not explain how the department’s failure to investigate would have affected his work environment or led to demonstrable harm.

The Tenth Circuit thus concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing the employee’s HWE claim.

Constructive discharge. Finally, the appeals court found that, because the employee failed to plausibly allege an HWE, that holding doomed his claim that abusive environment he alleged forced him to quit.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-1068.

Judge: Bacharach, R.

Attorneys: Grady Block (Mountain States Legal Foundation) for Joshua F. Young. Monica Manning, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, for Colorado Department of Corrections.

Companies: Colorado Department of Corrections

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees ColoradoNews KansasNews NewMexicoNews OklahomaNews UtahNews WyomingNews GCNNews