Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—9th Cir.: White employee revives hostile work environment claim tied to racial justice training, (Sep 29, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Among other things, the employee allegedly overheard trainers say that “white people are cannibals,” that “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and that “white people are like the devil.”

Reversing in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Seattle against the racial discrimination claims asserted by a former city employee, the Ninth Circuit determined that the evidence presented by the employee, accepted as true, would show that he was subjected to racially offensive statements and generalizations sufficiently severe and pervasive to state a colorable claim for a hostile work environment. According to the employee, the environment largely stemmed from the city’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) program, which was designed to undo institutionalized racism in the workplace. The court did, however, affirm the grant of summary judgment against his constructive discharge, retaliation, and equal protection claims (Diemert v. City of Seattle, No. 25-1188 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2026)).

The employee in this case is a white man who began working for the Human Services Department (HSD) for the City of Seattle in 2013.

RSJI program. Like all HSD workers, the employee participated in the city’s RSJI program. Started in 2004, the program aims to undo institutionalized racism and achieve racial equity in city government and the Seattle community.

Several workplace activities are offered under the RSJI, including trainings and events. Employees are required to participate in at least two RSJI activities per year, though there was no evidence employees would be penalized for failing to do so. The city also offers employees the opportunity to participate in racially and ethnically aligned affinity groups.

Workplace hostility. According to the employee, the RSJI was hostile to white employees and this racial hostility spilled over into the workplace generally. The employee alleged that his “supervisors and coworkers applied the Racial Initiative’s teachings to justify discriminatory behavior, deny him advancement, and retaliate when he objected.”

Among other things, the employee asserted that he was discouraged from applying for a supervisor position so that the role could be filled by an inexperienced person of color, resulting in the employee being forced to perform much of the work anyway, and an HSD manager had said to him, “[W]hat could you possibly offer our department..., being a straight white male?” He further alleged that he was told to step down from his lead role because his FMLA needs conflicted with his duties and he was preventing a person of color from being promoted to the role. He also contended his coworkers referred to him as a “white supremacist.”

EEOC complaint. On December 23, 2020, the employee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, alleging that he was harassed and discriminated against due to his race and that the RSJI trainings were racially hostile. The city opened an investigation into the claim, but the employee chose not to provide much help because he perceived the investigators as biased.

After filing his charge, the employee alleged, he was subject to retaliatory and discriminatory acts. He alleged that his manager declined to assist him with certain tasks, that his request to renew his reduced work schedule under the FMLA was denied, and that the city failed to promptly grant his request to work remotely following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Resignation. During the pandemic, the employee began working remotely in April 2020. In early 2021, unbeknownst to the city, he moved to Texas. When HSD directed employees to return to in-person work in June 2021, the employee requested full-time remote work as a disability accommodation. He then resigned before his request was resolved.

Lawsuit. Following his resignation, the employee filed this lawsuit, alleging a claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as claims of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). He also alleged the hostile work environment and retaliation he faced resulted in a constructive discharge. The district court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment against all claims, and this appeal followed.

HWE. First, the court addressed the employee’s hostile work environment claim. On this claim, the parties only disputed whether the workplace incidents at issue were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment.

In support of this claim, the employee pointed to several incidents that evinced a hostile work environment in addition to the ones previously mentioned. Those incidents included a manager telling him “that it was ‘impossible’ to be racist toward ‘white people,’” and the employee overhearing RSJI trainers state that “white people are cannibals,” that “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and that “white people are like the devil.”

These incidents “were sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue as to the existence of a racially hostile work environment,” said the court. The incidents in question referenced the employee’s race, targeted the employee, caused him to file complaints, required a separation from an allegedly harassing coworker, occurred over a substantial period of time, and occurred frequently, observed the court.

Where severity is questionable, it is more appropriate to leave the assessment to the fact-finder than for a court to decide the matter on summary judgment, concluded the court, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the employee’s Title VII and WLAD hostile work environment claims.

Constructive discharge. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim for constructive discharge. Although the court noted that the totality of circumstances are to be considered when viewing such claims, it found that the events occurring close in time to the employee’s September 2021 resignation were most relevant.

The employee cited three events occurring close in time to his resignation: (1) in June 2021 he asked his HR manager about creating his own affinity group before abandoning the request; (2) the HR manager told the employee in July 2021 that he was correcting the misclassification of the employee’s FMLA leave; and (3) less than a month before he resigned, the city was waiting for additional information from the employee’s doctor before resolving his request for a full-time remote work accommodation.

In the end, the court found these events did not plainly rise to conditions so extraordinary and egregious that the employee was left with no choice but to resign. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim was affirmed.

Disparate treatment, retaliation. Turning to the employee’s claims for disparate treatment and retaliation, he alleged that: (1) the city failed to investigate his discrimination claims; (2) it initially denied his FMLA leave extension; and (3) his supervisor treated him unfairly. The court addressed each in turn.

First, as to the employee’s complaint that the city retaliated against him by failing to investigate his complaints but acted quickly to address the complaints made by non-white employees, the court noted that the employee conceded that he did not cooperate with the investigation. Thus, he could not fault the city’s investigation.

As to the mischaracterization of his FMLA leave, the court observed that he continued to work his reduced hours and the city eventually retroactively reclassified the leave and issued a written notice to the employee approving his intermittent leave. Further, the employee adduced no evidence that the initial mischaracterization of his FMLA leave was motivated by his race.

Finally, the employee contended his manager discriminated and retaliated against him by asking him questions about processing delays, by canceling meetings, and by failing to support him with a technology issue he was experiencing. Here, there was evidence the manager emailed the employee about investigating the cause of the processing delays after he himself had raised the issue, the employee had no idea if the manager had canceled meetings with other employees, and the manager had arranged for accommodations until the technology issue was resolved. Based on these undisputed facts, no reasonable jury could find the manager’s actions constituted an adverse employment action or that she acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive, said the court. Thus, the grant of summary judgment against these claims was also affirmed.

Equal protection. With regard to the employee’s equal protection claim, he alleged that the district court erred by treating the RSJI as a race-neutral program and should have applied strict scrutiny in evaluating the lawfulness of the program.

In considering this issue, the court assumed without deciding that the employee had established a triable issue that the affinity groups involved an express racial classification. However, even assuming the city’s actions amounted to an explicit racial classification, the employee failed to establish a triable issue that he was personally injured by any such classification.

The employee was never required to join an affinity group aligned with his race, observed the court, nor was he prohibited from joining an affinity group aligned with a race other than his own. Further, he was not prohibited from establishing a racially diverse or non-racially aligned affinity group. Finally, he did not contend that he suffered any adverse consequences due to his refusal to participate in a racially aligned affinity group. Therefore, he failed to establish a triable issue that he was injured, explained the court.

In addition, the court assumed without deciding that the employee had established a triable issue that some of the RSJI trainings involved facial racial classifications. However, the employee again failed to show that he was personally injured by the classifications. He did not argue that he was required to attend or was excluded from any trainings or had suffered any adverse consequences for failing to attend any of the trainings.

Pattern. Finally, the employee argued that the alleged facial classifications, and therefore the standing inquiry, are broader than the trainings and affinity groups. He contended that the RSJI involved a pattern of racial classifications that caused him injury. In other words, the city and the RSJI broadly classified employees based on race, these classifications permeated the workplace, and the injuries he allegedly suffered were attributable to these broader classifications.

Putting aside the trainings and affinity groups, the court found that the employee failed to identify anything in the RSJI that explicitly treats an individual differently on the basis of race. He also failed to present evidence attributing his asserted injuries to any express racial classification. Thus, he could not establish standing for his equal protection claim, and the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-1188.

Judge: Murguia, M.

Attorneys: Laura D'Agostino (Pacific Legal Foundation) for Joshua A. Diemert. Victoria M. Slade (Davis Wright Tremaine) for City of Seattle.

Companies: City of Seattle

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Procedure PublicEmployees Retaliation Covid19 AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews ESGNews GCNNews