A federal court in Pennsylvania rejected a white employee’s claim that his employer created a hostile work environment by subjecting him to anti-racism training.

The case provides good insight as to how courts analyze claims of hostile work environment based on anti-racism training – and claims of hostile work environment in general.

Zack De Piero is a white man who began working as a writing professor at a satellite campus of Penn State University in 2018.

De Piero said that during his roughly four-year tenure, he experienced an unlawful hostile work environment. He attributed this to the school’s anti-racism training efforts, which he believed went too far and resulted in discrimination against him as a white person.

To support his claims that the employer violated Title VII, Section 1981 and state law, he pointed to 12 incidents that took place throughout his employment.

The essence of his allegations was that the school discriminated against him and harassed him based on his race.

To support that charge, he said:

• An assistant vice provost showed her anti-white bias at a meeting by saying in a meeting that it is a “challenge” for white people not to give in to their “privilege” and saying that looting is “getting what you’re due.”
• The campus DEI director sent an email telling staffers to commemorate Juneteenth by “hold[ing] other White people accountable.”
• The school endorsed the notion that white people are oppressors via an email chain that included the suggestion that a newly hired campus police officer needed “a serious anti-racism program” because he was white.
• A writing program coordinator instructed faculty to teach that white supremacy exists.
• A professional development meeting included a video titled, in part, “White Teachers are a Problem.”

De Piero filed an internal complaint of discrimination and harassment based on his race and color, but the school concluded it was unfounded.

After De Piero said in a meeting that “it’s a pretty extreme charge to suggest that teachers are reproducing racist discourses and practices in their classrooms” and questioned why white teachers were a focus of the discussion, the school told him his behavior was “aggressive, disruptive, unprofessional and in opposition to the University’s Values Statement.”

De Piero resigned — and then filed a lawsuit.

The school and other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

To state a valid hostile work environment claim, De Piero had to show:

• The defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his color or race
• The discrimination was severe or pervasive, and
• The mistreatment detrimentally affected him – and would detrimentally affect a reasonable person subjected to it.

The court said that while the events offered in support of De Piero’s claims may have been “unpleasant” to him, they did not meet the standard of “severe” harassment.

Nor were the complained-of events sufficiently pervasive, the court said. It pointed to a lack of frequency, noting that the events were spread out over more than three years.

In addition, only a few of the challenged actions were directed at him personally, and none were physically threatening. Also, he voluntarily attended meetings he later complained about.

It did not help De Piero that the defense uncovered text messages, sent to friends, in which he used a disgustingly vulgar term to refer to a female administrator and suggested he was looking to rock the boat regarding what he perceived as a “woke” work environment.

As a result, the court sided with the employer and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

This hostile work environment claim was presented in the context of anti-racism training, but the case is really about what’s needed to prove a legally hostile work environment exists.

Remember: To give rise to a viable claim of hostile work environment, the alleged discrimination or harassment must be severe or pervasive. The court decided De Piero did not clear either hurdle.

Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• Typically, the severity bar is not met if the complainant relies on a single incident. But beware: Sometimes a single act is enough, such as when a complainant supports a claim of a sexually harassing work environment with evidence that they were raped.
• A complainant who voluntarily subjects himself to a specific condition of employment is less likely to show that the condition created or contributed to an illegally hostile work environment.
• The pervasiveness requirement is met by showing that harassment occurred over a continuous period. The court found that De Piero’s reliance on 12 events over more than three years did not meet this standard.
• When conducting diversity training (or any other training), it’s a terrible idea to demonize any employee based on their membership in a particular protected class, such as color or race.
• The EEOC has explained that the question of whether particular conditions at work constitute an unlawful hostile work environment is answered by using an objective “reasonable person” standard. In other words, it is not enough that a particular employee was offended; the question is whether a reasonable person would find the conditions to be hostile, intimidating or abusive.

De Piero v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. 23-2281 (E.D. Pa. 3/6/25).