In Young v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, a Federal Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff Joshua F. Young’s claims against defendant Colorado Department of Corrections. The Court held that Mr. Young’s hostile work environment claim failed to allege that Colorado created an ongoing hostile presence permeating the workplace that was so severe it altered the terms of employment.

Background

Mr. Young began working for the Department of Corrections in 2017. He was quickly promoted to Housing Seargent in 2017, then to Visiting Seargent in 2020 for his “superior performance.” Following Mr. Young’s promotions, the Department of Corrections implemented mandatory Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) training, consisting of several online modules that Department of Corrections employees completed on their own computers. Mr. Young, a Caucasian male, alleged that the DEI training included “sweeping and overbroad generalizations about white people,” indicative of a workplace “permeated with [race-based] discrimination, ridicule, and insult.” The training included supplemental readings employees could choose—but were not required—to read, including books about the history and prevalence of racism in America. Mr. Young further alleged that the DEI training included an “Equity Continuum” document that advocated for “treating people differently on the basis of race, in contravention of state and federal law.”

Central to Mr. Young’s hostile work environment claim was his allegation that the DEI training created a “culture of suspicion and distrust in the Department.” This led to him feeling “harassed and intimidated to the point he no longer felt comfortable working for the department.” Mr. Young complained directly to the department but was told his complaint would not be investigated because it “did not establish a reasonable cause to indicate the presence of discrimination or harassment.” The employer’s refusal to investigate or remedy the situation created by the training led him to resign from his employment.

Hostile Work Environment & DEI Training

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(1), prohibits “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, religion, sex, or national origin.” To state a racially hostile work environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was due to race; and (4) the harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered a term, condition, or privilege of his employment and created an abusive environment.

The Tenth Circuit held that Mr. Young failed to show the DEI training was unwelcome harassment that was severe and pervasive. Because Mr. Young only subjectively perceived the training to create severe or pervasive harassment, rather than a workplace that is objectively permeated with discrimination, he could not bring a claim against his employer. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit commented on Mr. Young’s lack of evidence showing particular ”hostile” interactions with co-workers resulting from the DEI training. Alternatively, Mr. Young failed to demonstrate that discriminatory treatment or harassment occurred consistently within the Department, and there was no sign that a racial animus infested Mr. Young’s day-to-day work environment.

For employers, this decision shows that employees who object to DEI training may not advance a claim that DEI training, alone, creates a hostile work environment. As shown by the court’s reasoning, the training did not create severe or pervasive discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Young could not show that the alleged harassment occurred with the frequency required to support a hostile work environment claim. Mr. Young was also unable to show that he had been subjected to any other instances of harassment.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact PLDO Employment Law Attorneys Matthew C. Reeber or Kathryn M. Couture at (401) 824-5100, mreeber@pldolaw.com or kcouture@pldolaw.com.

[back to top]

In Keith v. Volvo Group, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fourth Circuit”) affirmed an order granting summary judgment to defendant Volvo Group North America, LLC (“Volvo”) against plaintiff James Lee Keith’s (“Mr. Keith”) claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Fourth Circuit held that (1) Mr. Keith was not a qualified individual under the ADA; and (2) his failure-to-accommodate claim failed because he could not perform essential functions of the job he requested. Mr. Keith had applied for an Engineering Technician position with Volvo but was not hired because of his particular restrictions.

The Fourth Circuit found that Mr. Keith was not a qualified individual, as he failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact that lifting 50 pounds or bending were not essential functions of the Engineering Technician position he sought. Notably, Mr. Keith was limited by his doctor from lifting more than 20 pounds. Paired with his “bending restrictions,” it was unlikely Mr. Keith would be able to perform an essential function of the position. Volvo maintained a detailed job description for the Engineering Technician position, which included listing that the position had a 40-pound lift requirement.

For employers, this case demonstrates the importance of having a detailed job description. Mr. Keith sought a position for which he was not qualified. Volvo was able to show that Engineering Technicians would be required to lift 40 pounds as part of their job. Mr. Keith was unable to lift 40 pounds. By having a detailed job description, the employer was able to defeat any inference of discrimination. If you have questions pertaining to employee discrimination claims, please contact PLDO Partner Matthew C. Reeber at (401) 824-5100 or mreeber@pldolaw.com.

[back to top]