In recent times, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become controversial, especially with the Trump Administration. But many businesses still incorporate these trainings to create an inclusive environment for people from all backgrounds.
Yet, as a recent New York-based federal appellate decision illustrates, even well-intentioned DEI efforts can expose employers to significant legal risk if they cross into territory that stigmatizes or stereotypes employees based on race. Chislett v. New York City Department of Education – decided late September 2025 – serves as a reminder that the goal of inclusion must never come at the expense of fairness, neutrality, and respect for all employees.
Helpful Case Facts
In Chislett, a Caucasian employee of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) brought suit alleging that she was subjected to a racially-hostile work environment, unlawfully demoted due to a discriminatory policy, and effectively lost her job as a result. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of her discharge and demotion claims but vacated and remanded the hostile work environment claim.
What does that mean? It means the appeals court sent the case back to the trial judge and essentially said that her hostile work environment claim may be winnable – the legal phrase is that there were “triable issues of material fact” to be decided – and so there needed to be a trial.
Her hostile work environment claim centered around a series of mandatory implicit bias and equity training sessions as well as later workplace interactions influenced by those sessions.
During these trainings, she alleged that facilitators made repeated statements suggesting that white culture was inherently supremacist, defensive, entitled, and toxic. Employees sometimes were lined up by privilege, meaning by the color of their skin, and they were singled out based on perceived whiteness. At one of the training sessions, an instructor told the claimant that her pursuit of excellence was “perfectionism consistent with white supremacy.”
The court noted that existing federal law doesn’t excuse discriminatory treatment simply because it occurs “in the context of discussions about combatting discrimination.” Employers must ensure that DEI training doesn’t reproduce the very discrimination it seeks to eliminate.
What Made It a Hostile Work Environment?
We’ve long reminded our readers that hostile work environment claims have nothing to do with nastiness, crabby bosses, yelling, or bullying – unless the behavior centers around a protected class such as race, national origin, age, and the like.
So against that backdrop, the standard for establishing a hostile work environment under federal law is if the behavior was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the claimant’s working conditions based on her protected class, which here was her Caucasian race. The decision pointed to a pattern of racially-charged remarks, the employer’s having singled out employees by race, and its persistent messages associating whiteness with negative traits. The appeals court then concluded that a jury could reasonably find that this behavior was pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.
Since this case involved a city agency, there’s an additional requirement for the hostile work environment claim, in that the hostile environment must be related to a city policy. On this point, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with District Court in the Southern District of New York – all of them based in New York City – when it held that the acts of discrimination weren’t a part of the city’s policy. The appellate court stated, though, that the supervisors’ participation in or their even tolerating discriminatory behaviors can support the inference that they had a custom or practice that allowed this behavior.
Here, the DOE allegedly ignored multiple complaints, failed to intervene, and effectively endorsed the allegedly discriminatory behaviors by continuing the same approach to training and team interactions. That inaction by the bosses supported the court’s finding that the hostile environment could be attributed to a city policy or custom of tolerating harassment based on race.
Key Lessons for New York Employers
Although Chislett involved a public employer, its lessons are relevant to private-sector organizations – including small businesses in New York – which are governed by federal anti-discrimination laws.
And remember, unlike the New York Human Rights Law, which is more employee-protective, federal law on discrimination has a severe and pervasive standard that a claimant must meet, whether she works for a government agency or a private employer.
So let’s examine the takeaways that will help the business community in New York ensure their programs, policies, and actions comply with the law as everyone tries to build inclusive workplaces:
- Intent Doesn’t Immunize Impact
The fact that DEI trainings aim to fight bias doesn’t shield employers from liability. Sessions that stereotype, humiliate, or target employees based on a protected characteristic such as race, gender, or otherwise – even if the employees are in the majority – can give rise to a hostile work environment claim. - Avoid Stereotyping
Training programs shouldn’t attach negative traits or behaviors to entire races or ethnic groups. Terms like toxic, fragile, or supremacist, when linked to Caucasians, risk crossing into unlawful stereotyping. Likewise, stereotypes like being lazy or too aggressive or angry, when linked to Black employees, are equally unlawful. - No Singling Out or Segregation by Race
Exercises that physically or symbolically divide participants by race or privilege easily can be interpreted as discriminatory. Group discussions should be voluntary, inclusive, and framed in ways that promote mutual understanding rather than blame. The goal here is to invite everyone in to the discussion and to de-escalate animosity. - Respond Promptly to Complaints
An employer’s liability often depends on its response. When employees raise concerns of any kind, expecially that DEI content or discussions have become offensive or discriminatory, management must take those complaints seriously and investigate promptly. Ignoring or minimizing concerns – even if a manager doesn’t immediately believe they’re legitimate – can transform a training misstep into a legal exposure. Listen to employees and investigate promptly! - Train the Trainers
DEI facilitators should receive compliance guidance on workplace discrimination laws. They have to steer clear of generalizations about race, gender, or other protected categories. The tone and structure of the program matter as much as its content. - Document and Review
Employers should maintain records of DEI programs, review training materials through a legal lens, and periodically assess whether programs align with equal employment opportunity principles.
The Bottom Line
Employers don’t need to shy away from DEI efforts. New York law as well as federal law prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected classes. Evidence shows that diverse workforces as well as diversity in leadership is correlated with higher overall profitability.
Thoughtful, balanced initiatives remain important tools for building equitable workplaces and mitigating bias. But Chislett demonstrates that inclusion efforts must themselves be inclusive. When trainings or policies make employees feel attacked, stereotyped, or marginalized because of their race, the employer risks violating the very laws designed to ensure workplace fairness.
The path forward is nuanced: promote awareness without assigning blame, encourage dialogue without discrimination, and design DEI programs that truly include everyone. By striking that balance, employers can advance diversity and equity while safeguarding their organizations from avoidable legal risk.
If you have any questions, we can help. Reach out to The Coppola Firm by email at info@coppolalegal.com or by phone at 716.839.9700.
We’re here to help.
