Amicus Brief: Seattle’s “Race and Social Justice Initiative” Mandates Unlawful Racial Stereotyping 

Diemert v. City of Seattle 

The City of Seattle implemented a controversial Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) intended to promote racial equity and diversity in the workplace. Joshua Diemert, a former city employee, challenged the initiative as creating a discriminatory work environment by promoting harmful racial stereotypes and violates his rights to equal protection. 

What happened to Diemert:  As a White male employee, Joshua was required to participate in mandatory training sessions that taught “all White people are racist” and that racism cannot be experienced by White individuals. The situation escalated when Joshua witnessed his colleagues denying benefits to eligible White homeless applicants, specifically because of their race, citing “White privilege” as a justification.  

When Joshua objected to this discriminatory practice, his manager reprimanded him, labeled him a “racist,” and ordered him to participate in additional RSJI training. 

The district court got it wrong. Rather than examining whether Seattle’s specific training practices violated federal civil rights laws, the district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, incorrectly framing it as a broad attack on all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion trainings. 

Now it’s up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to correct these serious legal errors. The district court’s flawed reasoning, if allowed to stand, would set a concerning precedent allowing government employers to engage in racial stereotyping without legal consequences. 

This case isn’t about opposing workplace diversity—it’s about ensuring that government anti-racism efforts comply with the very civil rights law they claim to advance. A reversal by the Ninth Circuit is essential to protect constitutional boundaries and prevent race-based discrimination by government employers. 

Background: What is the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII? 

This case centers on two fundamental protections that apply to all Americans, regardless of race. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

What it does: This constitutional provision forbids state and local governments from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” When governments create policies that classify people by race, courts must apply “strict scrutiny”—the most demanding level of constitutional review. The government must prove that (1) it has a “compelling” reason for the racial classification; and (2) the policy is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that goal. 

How Seattle violates this Clause: Seattle’s RSJI training system classifies employees by race and promotes negative stereotypes about White people, without meeting the requirements of strict scrutiny.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

What it does:  This landmark federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It applies to all aspects of employment—hiring, firing, compensation, job assignments, and creating hostile work environments through harassment or pervasive racial stereotypes. Title VII’s provisions ensure fairness and equity in employment, safeguarding employees of all races from both overt and subtle forms of discrimination. 

How Seattle violates Title VII: Seattle’s mandatory training sessions, which taught racial stereotypes and led to discriminatory treatnment of White employees, violated Title VII’s prohibition on race-based hostile work environments. 

Both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII work together to ensure that government efforts to address racial issues don’t themselves become sources of racial discrimination. Even well-intentioned programs to improve racial diversity in the workplace must comply with constitutional and federal civil rights protections. 

Why This Case Matters 

This appeal tests critical constitutional boundaries regarding the legality of government-sponsored anti-racism and DEI training. The Ninth Circuit’s decision could clarify when race-conscious policies and training can cross constitutional and statutory lines, affecting workplace environments nationwide. The outcome of this case will also influence whether government entities can legally use controversial theories of race and racism without accountability under Equal Protection and Title VII standards. 

CIR filed this amicus brief in partnership with attorneys at Steptoe LLP, whose exceptional work and commitment to defending constitutional principles made this brief possible.