Federal Circuit Court Upholds Claim against DEI Training

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal equal opportunity protection laws apply equally to all workers regardless of race, gender, and other protected characteristics.  Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. 

Another ruling in 2024 by the same Court found that a plaintiff need only show that they experienced “some harm” and unfavorable treatment. Muldrow v. St. Louis.  The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently allowed a white former executive to continue a claim alleging that a “reasonable jury” could find his employer’s implicit bias training created a hostile environment.  Chislett v. New York City Department of Education, No. 24-972 (2nd Cir., 9/25/25). 

The training allegedly described “white culture” as “supremacist,” and “toxic,” suggesting that employers should avoid using terms like “white privilege” with their anti-bias training.  The opinion did indicate that mandatory implicit bias training is not inherently illegal, but it also stated it can give rise to a hostile environment claim if the training discusses a particular race with “a constant drumbeat” of “negative language.” 

The result is that anti-bias training should not stereotype a racial group.  On the other hand, in a case last year, the Seventh Circuit ruled that objection to participating in mandatory DEI training on the belief that it contains discriminatory content wasn’t enough to show that plaintiff was discriminated and retaliated against. 

This article is part of our December 2025 Newsletter. 

View the newsletter online

Download the newsletter as a PDF