Tenth Circuit: Racial Sensitivity Training Program Didn’t Create Hostile Work Environment

An employer’s racial sensitivity training program did not rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment, the Tenth Circuit recently held, affirming dismissal of a white male employee’s Title VII claim.

Joshua Young, a white male, worked for the Colorado Department of Corrections. He was required to attend a training program addressing racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities.

He filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the training program created a discriminatory and hostile work environment against white employees.

Young claimed that the training program created disturbing generalizations about the role of all white people in perpetuating the mistreatment of racial minorities, pointing to a glossary used during the training, guidance in administering meetings and recommended videos for further education about race.

The district court granted the Department of Corrections’ motion to dismiss, and Young appealed.

Noting that the burden for Young was “extremely high” to allege “more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity” and facts that would render the workplace “overtly hostile,” the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal.

Under the standard, the discriminatory behavior could be actionable if it was either severe or pervasive.

As for the glossary referenced by Young, while he objected to the terminology used—such as “white fragility,” defined as a white person’s discomfort and defensiveness when confronted by information about racial injustice—he didn’t say how the glossary affected his job responsibilities, the court said.

The training allegedly advised leaders to let less powerful people speak first and to treat employees differently based on race. Again, “Young disagreed with this advice, but doesn’t explain how it rendered the workplace permeated with abuse,” the court wrote.

Turning to the videos, which contained generalized discussion about white people’s attitudes toward race, Young alleged the discussion was offensive, “but he doesn’t say how the content affected his job responsibilities, interactions with fellow employees, or career advancement,” the court noted.

Young contended that the training program impacted his day-to-day work because an ongoing commitment existed for the training to continue, employees had to endorse the race-based ideology reflected in the training, supervisors acted upon the training for disciplinary decisions, the training compromised security and the Department of Corrections failed to investigate his allegations.

The argument that the Department of Corrections would continue with the same racist blueprint in its training stretched the complaint too far, the court found, as the slides themselves note that the training will change, and the terminology will be modified on an ongoing basis.

“Regardless of those modifications, however, Mr. Young experienced only a single training session and he quit four months later,” the court wrote. “His fears about future programming wouldn’t suggest that the workplace had turned ‘overtly hostile’ and ‘permeated with discriminatory behavior’ in this four-month period.”

Endorsement of the training’s race-based ideology was not required, the court said, as the training included admonitions that employees didn’t need to change their values or beliefs and should discuss questions and challenges from the training.

“Given these admonitions, Mr. Young’s allegations do not plausibly allege a pattern of abuse against white employees who disagreed with the training,” the court said. “After all, Mr. Young didn’t plead any facts suggesting that he had experienced negative feedback in the four months following the training or that his supervisors had discussed the training.”

While Young told the court that supervisors were already acting upon the training in making disciplinary decisions, his reference to an incident failed to detail whether the accusation of racism was warranted, whether the incident took place after the training or whether the incident affected his work conditions.

“Granted, Mr. Young alleges that he thought that others had viewed him as a racist,” the court wrote. “But he doesn’t allege that anyone said he was racist after the training; his suspicions about unspoken attitudes wouldn’t create an abusive working environment.”

Young also claimed that the training caused him to second guess his decisions about using force and screening for contraband, raising security concerns, but his allegations didn’t refer to particular circumstances or suggest that the changes jeopardized security, the court said. Instead, the allegations reflected only hesitation.

The final allegation, that the Department of Corrections failed to investigate his allegations, lacked an explanation from Young about how the alleged failure would have affected his work environment.

In a footnote, the court acknowledged Young’s argument that the Attorney General, Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . “We assume for the sake of argument that these agencies are right,” the court wrote. “The question here, however, is whether Mr. Young has alleged a plausible claim that the training and the aftermath created a workplace permeated with discriminatory behavior.” As he failed to do so, the court affirmed dismissal of his lawsuit.

To read the opinion in Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, click .

Why it matters: The court emphasized the high threshold required of a Title VII hostile workplace environment claim and determined that Young failed to satisfy the burden with his allegations about the training program. The decision confirms that employers can still provide diversity trainings without necessarily violating the law.