Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Employee’s Title VII DEI Training-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim

Bayan Biazar, Associate

On May 11, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals  for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of an employee’s lawsuit challenging a diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) training program through a hostile work environment claim. In Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections,[1] the Tenth Circuit Court held that allegations concerning mandatory DEI training, standing alone, cannot plausibly establish the type of “severe or pervasive” harassment required to sustain a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[2]

            This decision has come at a time where the legal landscape surrounding DEI is changing, particularly following increased federal scrutiny of employer DEI programs and executive action targeting race-based employment practices.

Background

            In Young, a white employee (the “plaintiff”) of the Colorado Department of Corrections alleged that a mandatory DEI training and workplace discussions concerning systematic racism and white privilege created a hostile work environment. The plaintiff claimed that the training and workplace standards stigmatized white employees and constituted unlawful discrimination. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the allegations did not plausibly establish objectively severe or pervasive workplace harassment. The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit Court stated that hostile work environment claims must meet an “extremely high” standard that requires a plaintiff to allege that their workplace is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” that is so objectively severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions or terms of one’s employment and creates an abusive working environment.[3]

            The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff found the content of the training offensive and believed it promoted negative stereotypes about White employees. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the DEI training did not rise to the level of an objectively hostile work environment because the allegations failed to show how the training itself altered a term or condition of the plaintiff’s employment, altered his interactions with coworkers, or altered his career opportunities, at least one of which was necessary to sustain his hostile work environment claim.

 DEI Programs Amid The Changing Legal Landscape

            Although the Tenth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim in Young, the decision arrives at a time where workplace DEI initiatives are facing increasing legal and political scrutiny. The Trump administration recently issued an Executive Order directed toward federal contractors that seeks to define “illegal DEI” practices in terms of intentional race or ethnicity discrimination.[4] The Executive Order reflects continued federal attention toward workplace DEI programs and signals to employers that they could face increased scrutiny regarding DEI trainings, policies, and employment practices.

            Young demonstrates that while other governing bodies may acknowledge that training in DEI can rise to the level of unlawful discrimination, the question as it pertains to the court and the hostile work environment claims in front of it is whether a plaintiff has alleged a “plausible claim that the training and the aftermath created a workplace permeated with discriminatory behavior.”[5]

DEI Training Based Hostile Work Environment Claims in Colorado

            Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) may have resulted in a different analysis than the one applied by the Tenth Circuit under Title VII because, unlike its federal counterpart, CADA provides that “the conduct or communication need not be severe or pervasive to constitute a discriminatory or unfair employment practice.”[6] Instead, Colorado courts analyze hostile work environment claims under a broader statutory framework that considers the totality of the circumstances, including factors such as the frequency of the conduct, whether the conduct reflects stereotypes about a protected class, and whether the conduct had the purposes or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.[7]

            While a Colorado court may have still concluded that the allegations concerning the DEI training were insufficient to establish actionable harassment, because, for example, the plaintiff failed to show that the alleged discriminatory conduct had the purposes or effect of interfering with work performance, the plaintiff’s allegations that the training advanced negative stereotypes about White employees may have received greater scrutiny under CADA.

Key Takeaways

            While the DEI-related landscape continues to evolve and remains at the forefront of public and legal scrutiny, the Young decision should provide employers implementing DEI training programs with some peace of mind that such programs do not automatically give rise to actionable hostile work environment claims under Title VII. Further, courts, at least those in the Tenth Circuit, continue to apply the traditional “severe or pervasive” standard to hostile work environment claims involving DEI-related training programs, notwithstanding the issuance of potentially contrary federal guidance.

            Nevertheless, employers should continue to review DEI materials, workplace standards and trainings to ensure they are not perceived as targeting employees based on race or implemented in a manner that could alter employees’ interactions with coworkers, terms or conditions of employment, or career opportunities. Campbell Litigation will continue to monitor DEI-related developments and is available to assist employers in evaluating their DEI materials and workplace standards. 

 [1] Young v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 25-1068 (10th Cir. May 11, 2026).

[2] See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 to 2000e-17.

[3] See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

[4] See https://www.rockymountainemployersblog.com/blog/2026/4/9/trump-administration-issues-new-executive-order-for-federal-contractors-defining-illegal-dei-in-terms-of-intentional-race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-but-excludes-sex for a prior blog post discussing the recent Executive Order.  

[5] See Young, slip op. at 15 n. 4.

[6] See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402(1)(1.3)(a).

[7] See id. at §§ (1)(1.3)(a)(I)-(III), (c)(II)(A)-(I).