Discrimination
Diemert v. City of Seattle (9th Cir., 2026): White Employee States Hostile Work Environment Claim
Updated
In Diemert v. City of Seattle, the Ninth Circuit held that a white former city employee had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The court reversed summary judgment on that claim and remanded, while affirming summary judgment for the City on the employee’s equal protection, disparate treatment, retaliation, and constructive discharge claims.
Background
Joshua Diemert, a white man, worked for the City of Seattle’s Human Services Department beginning in 2013. Like all department employees, he participated in the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative, which required staff to attend racial-justice trainings and facilitated racially aligned affinity groups, or caucuses.
Diemert alleged that, over roughly five years, he faced a series of race-related incidents: being discouraged from applying for a supervisory role, being asked what he could offer “being a straight white male,” and hearing trainers and coworkers make statements such as “racism is in white people’s DNA.” He resigned in September 2021 and sued in November 2022.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment to the City on all claims. Diemert appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed the summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to him.
What the Court Held on the Hostile Work Environment Claim
The court explained that a hostile work environment plaintiff must show conduct directed at him because of his race that was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter his working conditions. The parties disputed only the severity-or-pervasiveness element, so the court focused there, weighing the totality of the circumstances.
The court emphasized that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs, and that race-conscious training programs are not inherently unlawful. But such programs can create a racially hostile environment. Viewing the numerous incidents over a five-year span together, the court found them sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue, comparing the record to prior cases that had survived summary judgment.
A white employee may establish a racially hostile work environment claim under Title VII and the WLAD, and race-conscious workplace training programs can support such a claim when the evidence, viewed as a whole, shows conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
What the Court Held on the Equal Protection Claim
Diemert also argued that the Race and Social Justice Initiative was a facially race-based policy that classified employees by race. The court assumed without deciding that the affinity groups and some trainings involved express racial classifications, but affirmed summary judgment on Article III standing grounds.
To show an injury in fact, Diemert had to establish a triable issue that he was personally denied equal treatment by a racial classification. The court found he was never required to join an affinity group, never barred from any group or training, and identified no adverse consequence tied to a classification—so he failed to establish standing.
What the Court Held on Constructive Discharge and Retaliation
The court affirmed summary judgment on constructive discharge, holding that the events closest to Diemert’s resignation—including an affinity-group inquiry, a correction of his Family and Medical Leave Act classification, and a pending telework request—were not severe enough to make his working conditions intolerable.
On disparate treatment and retaliation, the court applied the burden-shifting framework and concluded that the challenged actions—the handling of his complaints, an initially denied leave certification later corrected, and a manager’s conduct—were not adverse employment actions or were supported by nondiscriminatory reasons Diemert could not show were pretextual. The court also noted that the appellant’s briefing failed to comply with Rule 28 by not tying specific facts to specific record citations.
What This Means for You
This decision confirms that a white employee can pursue a racially hostile work environment claim under Title VII and the WLAD, and that race-conscious training programs may support such a claim when the cumulative conduct is severe or pervasive. It also holds that a plaintiff challenging a race-based program on equal protection grounds must show he was personally injured by a classification to establish standing.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.