Here’s something you don’t see every day. A federal appeals court just told Seattle that a jury needs to hear whether the city’s DEI programs crossed the line from workplace diversity into outright racial hostility. And the employee bringing the case? A White guy who says he was told racism is baked into his DNA.
Let’s be clear about what happened here. Joshua Diemert worked for Seattle’s Human Services Department and claims he endured years of treatment that would make any reasonable person’s jaw drop. His supervisors allegedly asked him what he could contribute “being a straight White male.” He was told it’s impossible to discriminate against White people. They encouraged him to step aside from a leadership role so a person of color could take his place instead. And in mandatory DEI training sessions, speakers reportedly called White people cannibals and devils.
You know what’s remarkable? The three-judge panel that revived this case was unanimous. Even more interesting, the opinion was written by Judge Mary Murguia, an Obama appointee. This isn’t some partisan hit job. This is a straightforward application of federal anti-discrimination law, which protects workers regardless of race. That’s not a conservative talking point. That’s literally what Title VII says.
The court didn’t rule that Seattle’s DEI programs are unconstitutional. That’s important. They simply said Diemert’s allegations are serious enough that a jury should decide whether the city created a racially hostile work environment. Judge Murguia made it clear that talking about historical discrimination or trying to address racial barriers isn’t inherently wrong. But when your diversity training starts calling people cannibals based on their skin color, you’ve probably veered into hostile territory.
This case matters beyond Seattle. Every corporation, government agency, and nonprofit that’s rushed to implement DEI programs over the past few years should be paying attention. The legal landscape is shifting fast. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan argued that this decision sends a warning about race-based workplace programs carrying real legal consequences. He’s right.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented Diemert, emphasized that the court didn’t give employers a green light to classify employees by race. Government racial classifications remain constitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. That’s the legal standard that says if you’re going to divide people by race, you better have an incredibly compelling reason and no other way to achieve your goal.
Think about the workplace dynamics this creates. Imagine sitting in a mandatory training where someone tells you that your race makes you inherently evil. That you’re genetically predisposed to racism. That you should voluntarily give up career opportunities because of how you were born. Now imagine your employer requiring you to attend these sessions as a condition of keeping your job.
Conservative principles have always held that individuals should be judged on merit, character, and ability. Not on immutable characteristics. Not on collective guilt. The civil rights movement fought for decades to establish that principle in law. Title VII was supposed to protect all workers from discrimination, not create new hierarchies based on fashionable racial theories.
Seattle’s defense will likely argue that their programs aim to address systemic inequalities and create more inclusive workplaces. Fine. But inclusivity that requires demonizing certain employees isn’t really inclusive at all. It’s just discrimination with better marketing.
The larger constitutional questions remain unresolved. Can government employers run race-based affinity groups? Can they implement training programs that treat employees differently based on race? Those issues will probably need to be litigated separately. But this ruling establishes something fundamental: Title VII doesn’t give anyone permission to create hostile work environments, regardless of which race is being targeted.
What happens next matters. If a jury finds that Seattle did create a hostile environment, other employers running similar programs will face serious exposure. The Trump administration’s push to eliminate DEI in federal agencies suddenly looks prescient rather than reactionary. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far, and legal corrections become necessary.
This isn’t about opposing diversity or defending discrimination. It’s about maintaining basic fairness and legal consistency. The law should mean what it says and apply equally to everyone. That’s not a radical position. It’s foundational.
Related: The Washington Post Would Rather Protect Criminals Than Your Kids