Should the Civil Rights Act protect all Americans equally, or must some meet a higher standard to prove racial discrimination? A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden imposed a heavier burden on white plaintiffs, a distinction the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rightfully rejected this week.
From 2013 until 2021, Joshua Diemert worked for Seattle’s Human Services Department, assessing eligibility for the city’s Utility Discount Program. Throughout that entire span, Diemert had satisfactory performance reviews and no disciplinary record.
During his tenure with the city, Diemert was forced to attend two Race and Social Justice Initiative activities a year. RSJI is a citywide effort to “end institutional racism and race-based disparities in City government.”
Technically, all RSJI trainings are open to all races. But that is not how the training unfolds in practice.
The details for the “Internalized Racial Inferiority” training, for example, suggested that only those “who identify as a person of color” should attend, while the “Internalized Racial Superiority” training was suggested for “City employees who identify as white.”
In addition to the trainings, the city pushed employees to join racial affinity groups such as the “White Caucus,” the “African Descent Caucus,” and the “European Descent Community Group.” Again, the city stressed that the caucuses “are completely voluntary and no one will be turned away,” but then added that employees are encouraged to join “the caucus that aligns with how they identify racially.”
The trainings Diemert was forced to attend were every bit as blatantly racist as they sound. In one 2019 “Undoing Institutional Racism Workshop,” Diemert was informed that “all white people are cannibals.” In another, a trainer said that “racism is in white people’s DNA” and that “white people are like the devil.”
District Judge Jamal Whitehead dismissed all of Diemert’s evidence as irrelevant. “The context in which statements are made matters,” Whitehead wrote, arguing that racially charged comments made during city-mandated struggle sessions “are better framed as attempts to express perspectives or challenge ideas within the training’s scope.”
“Such comments made in the presence of a skilled facilitator can be addressed constructively, turning the moment into a learning opportunity, not a personal attack,” Whitehead concluded, without explaining how an authority figure paid by the city to liken you to the devil could be seen as anything other than a personal attack. “We must acknowledge what history and common sense tell us,” Whitehead continued, “instances of discrimination against the majority are rare and unusual.”
The three appellate judges were not so eager to dismiss Diemert’s claim. They rejected Whitehead’s assertion that “instances of discrimination against the majority are rare and unusual,” instead noting that the Civil Rights Act’s “disparate treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” The majority went on to note that “race-conscious training programs may violate Title VII when they create a racially hostile work environment.” If Diemert’s factual allegations hold up at trial, such a violation will have been established in this case.
The appellate court then went on to identify 11 racially charged incidents described by Diemert over the span of six years that were sufficiently severe to create a triable issue as to the existence of a hostile work environment. In addition to the trainings above, Diemert alleges that he was discouraged from applying for a supervisory role because of his race, that he was told by a manager, “[W]hat could you possibly offer our department … being a straight white male,” and that another manager called him a “colonist” with “white privilege.”
“We conclude that these incidents were sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue as to the existence of a racially hostile work environment,” the appellate court concluded.
SANCTUARY DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING AMERICA LAST
The Civil Rights Act does not contain one standard for racial minorities and another for everyone else. It protects employees from discrimination based on race, regardless of the race in question. Diemert still must prove his allegations at trial, but he is entitled to have them judged under the same legal standard as any other employee.
And after years in which diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have normalized increasingly extreme racial rhetoric in the workplace, lawsuits such as these are a necessary check. The 9th Circuit’s ruling is a reminder that no fashionable ideology places racial discrimination beyond the reach of civil rights law.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
