Joshua Young was a corrections sergeant at the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). In or around 2020, the Department implemented mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training for its employees, consisting of several online modules to be completed on employees’ personal computers. Young complained that the “training materials were based upon a glossary of terms stating that all whites are racist, that white individuals created the concept of race to justify the oppression of people of color, and that whiteness and white supremacy affect all people of color within a U.S. context.” The glossary bears the endorsement of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. Young claimed that the “glossary also states that white individuals are triggered by feelings of guilt and fear when confronted with information about racial inequality and injustice, a ‘phenomenon’ labeled as ‘white fragility.’” Young alleged these materials asserted that Young himself promotes racist principles merely by the color of his skin.
Young submitted a formal complaint to the DOC, which declined to investigate because it “did not establish reasonable cause to indicate the presence of discrimination or discriminatory harassment.” Young resigned shortly thereafter and sued the DOC for creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII based on Young’s race. The DOC successfully moved to dismiss Young’s claim, arguing that even as alleged, the harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to violate the law. Young appealed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court noted that a racially hostile work environment claim requires allegations that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was due to race; and (4) the harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered a term, condition, or privilege of his employment and created an abusive environment. The Court noted that elements (1) and (3) were met because Young alleged that he was a white man, and that the DEI trainings targeted him as a white man. The Court then analyzed whether Young satisfied the second and fourth elements of the test.
The Court determined that the DEI training might constitute unwelcome harassment. It was especially concerned with the trainings’ treatment of “white exceptionalism,” in which it cautioned trainees against so-called “white allies.” The theory advanced by the trainings was that racism was endemic to white Americans, and that the idea that some white Americans could reject racist ideology was itself in service of white supremacy. According to the Court, “This type of race-based rhetoric is well on the way to arriving at objective and subjective harassing messaging. Taken seriously by managers and co-workers, the messaging could promote racial discrimination and stereotypes within the workplace. It could encourage racial preferences in hiring, firing, and promotion decisions. Moreover, employees who object to these types of messages risk being individually targeted for discriminatory treatment – especially if employers explicitly or implicitly reward discriminatory outcomes.”
The Court found that Young did not allege harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile workplace. The Court explained that “severity and pervasiveness are assessed based on a number of factors within the workplace: (1) the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct; (2) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or merely an offensive utterance; and (3) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Young alleged that he was “forced to resign” as a result of the DEI training but provided no specific details as to why. What was most obviously missing was any evidence that Young experienced harassment from his supervisors or co-workers. He also did not allege that the training occurred more than once, nor that he or anyone else was threatened with discipline for failing to complete it. The Court then compared Young’s circumstances to cases in which it found evidence of a hostile workplace. In those cases, the plaintiffs were repeatedly targeted by co-workers and supervisors with racially demeaning language, and often threatened. Young was not so targeted. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision below, and found that Young failed to state a claim of a racially hostile work environment based on the mandatory DEI training.
Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, No. 23-1063, 2024 WL 1040625 (10th Cir., 2024).