A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a jury, not a judge, should decide whether Seattle’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs created a racially hostile work environment for a white city employee.
The unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide whether Seattle’s DEI initiatives violate the Constitution or federal anti-discrimination law. Instead, it found the employee’s allegations were substantial enough that a jury should weigh whether the way the city carried out its DEI programs amounted to a racially hostile workplace. The broader constitutional questions about Seattle’s race-based programs remain unresolved.
Judge Mary Murguia, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote for the panel that workplace training on racial barriers is not automatically discriminatory. “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,” she wrote. “Accordingly, race-conscious training programs may violate Title VII when they create a racially hostile work environment.”
The case was brought by Joshua Diemert, who worked in Seattle’s Human Services Department. He alleged that over several years he was subjected to repeated race-based comments and incidents at work, 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.
Diemert also said he attended DEI trainings where speakers claimed “white people are cannibals,” that racism is in “white people’s DNA,” and that “white people are like the devil.”
What the Court Actually Decided
Laura D’Agostino, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case, said the panel ruled only that Diemert lacked standing to bring a constitutional claim and did not decide whether Seattle’s race-based affinity groups and training programs were themselves unconstitutional.
“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. 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.
D’Agostino said the ruling makes clear that labeling something a racial-equity training does not shield it from federal civil rights law if it becomes a source of harassment. “Employers can address discrimination without creating or tolerating a racially hostile environment for their employees,” she told Fox News Digital.
The court framed the case as being about a pattern rather than any single remark or training. It concluded that a jury should weigh whether the alleged comments, trainings and workplace incidents, taken together over several years, amounted to 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 officials are reviewing the decision and discussing potential next steps.
Broader Implications
Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute said the ruling leaves the door open for future constitutional challenges to similar DEI programs, even though Diemert’s own equal-protection claim was dismissed. “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 said, adding that “race-conscious” programs remain on “dubious legal ground.”
The panel also pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, noting that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.”
Eric Wessan, Iowa’s Solicitor General, called the ruling a significant signal for DEI programs nationwide. “I think the easiest way to think about it is if the same stuff was happening, but he was another race other than white. 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,” Wessan told Fox News Digital. “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.”
