Tenth Circuit Again Rejects Employee DEI Training-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims

Takeaways

• The Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that hostile work environment claims based on DEI training require more than a single workplace training program.
• Courts continue to distinguish between mandatory DEI training and actionable workplace harassment discrimination, requiring plaintiffs to allege “severe or pervasive” harassment that alters the terms and conditions of employment.
• Employers should continue reviewing DEI training content and implementation practices to ensure compliance with Title VII and minimize litigation risk, particularly as challenges to workplace DEI initiatives continue.

Related links

• Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr.
• What Do Recent DEI Training-Focused Federal Agency Guidance and Court Decisions Mean for Employers?

Article

Emphasizing the “extremely high threshold” plaintiffs must meet to transform diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training into a hostile work environment claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed dismissal of a former corrections officer’s lawsuit. Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 25-1068 (10th Cir. May 11, 2026).

The decision arrives amid continuous scrutiny of workplace DEI initiatives by federal agencies and private litigants. At the same time, courts evaluating these claims continue applying traditional hostile work environment standards requiring allegations of objectively severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct affecting the workplace.

Background

Plaintiff Joshua Young worked as a corrections officer for the defendant, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC). The CDOC required all corrections officers to attend “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” training. Young first brought suit in 2022, alleging that the training “created disturbing generalizations about the role of all White people in perpetuating the mistreatment of racial minorities” that resulted in a hostile work environment.

The CDOC moved to dismiss the claim, and the District Court granted its motion without prejudice in February 2023. Young appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 94 F.4th 1242 (10th Cir. 2024).

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Young filed this lawsuit while his appeal was pending. He asserted additional facts and broadened his suit to include hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, constructive discharge and a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim.

In his complaint, Young described features of the training that he alleged created or contributed to a hostile work environment. In addition to being mandatory, the training defined certain terms that he felt were racially hostile toward White people, including “race,” “white supremacy,” and “cultural appropriation.” Young also alleged that the training’s “bystander intervention” section, which encouraged employees to intervene when someone interrupts, ignores, or disregards a “person of lower power and/or status,” suggested that employees should not intervene if a non-White employee interrupts a White employee. Although Young only attended one training, he alleged that the training would recur annually and continue making “sweeping generalizations” about White people.

According to Young, these aspects of the training created a culture of suspicion and distrust marred by fear that White employees could be accused of racism or disciplined for failing to abide by the training. He contended that the training made him worry that the CDOC would write him up if he searched non-White prison visitors, made him hesitant to use force against incarcerated people, and undermined his confidence that the CDOC would support him if someone accused him of racism.

The District of Colorado court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on Jan. 27, 2025, finding:

while Plaintiff may have sufficiently alleged that the EDI training interfered with his work performance based on his subjective reaction to it, he does not allege sufficient objective facts about his workplace to establish that his workplace would be deemed hostile by a reasonable employee under the same or similar circumstances.

Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 23-cv-01688-NYW-SBP (D. Colo.). Young appealed.

Tenth Circuit’s Decision

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the suit. The court emphasized that hostile work environment claims face an “extremely high” bar and require allegations showing a workplace “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.

The court found Young’s allegations about the content of the training insufficient to plausibly show an objectively abusive workplace. Although Young found the content offensive and believed it promoted negative stereotypes about White people, the court stressed that he failed to allege concrete effects on his actual employment conditions, interactions with coworkers, or career opportunities. The court further emphasized that Young did not allege discriminatory treatment by supervisors or coworkers, adverse employment actions, exclusion from opportunities, or other facts showing pervasive workplace hostility beyond the training itself. The Tenth Circuit’s opinion reflects courts’ continued reluctance to equate exposure to workplace training content, without accompanying discriminatory conduct or tangible workplace effects, with the type of objectively abusive environment required under Title VII.

The court rejected Young’s remaining claims as speculative, conclusory, unsupported by specific facts, or too disconnected from actual workplace abuse to establish the pervasive hostility required under Title VII or Section 1981.

Because Young failed to plausibly allege a hostile work environment, his constructive discharge claim failed as well.

In a footnote, the court addressed Young’s assertion that the attorney general, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Department of Education have recognized that DEI training can rise to the level of unlawful discrimination. The court clarified that “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that these agencies are correct,” the question before the court is whether the plaintiff “has alleged a plausible claim that the training and the aftermath created a workplace permeated with discriminatory behavior.” The court concluded that Young had not.

Key Takeaways

The Tenth Circuit’s decision underscores that for DEI-based training to constitute an unlawful hostile work environment, plaintiffs must allege conduct that is “severe or pervasive.” While employers have successfully defended against training-based race discrimination claims, they often face costly motion practice, at least through summary judgment.

The outcomes of these types of cases depend on specific factual circumstances, including the content, context, and impact of the training. The Tenth Circuit’s decision further reinforces that courts generally look for allegations of concrete workplace effects, rather than allegations focused solely on disagreement with or offense at training content, when evaluating hostile work environment claims arising from workplace training.

Courts thus far have generally found that mandatory participation in training programs, standing alone, does not violate federal antidiscrimination statutes. At the same time, courts continue leaving open the possibility that training content, combined with alleged inappropriate conduct, stereotyping, differential treatment, or tangible workplace consequences, could support viable claims under appropriate facts.

Employers should continue to review existing training content for strict compliance with Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions and monitor implementation, complaint-handling processes, potential retaliation concerns, and downstream effects of ongoing training programs.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers in evaluating training programs and related DEI practices for legal risk and compliance.