The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Seattle in Joshua Diemert’s action alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as hostile work environment, constructive discharge, disparate treatment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”).

​

Diemert, a white man who worked for the City’s Human Services Department, alleged that the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative classified employees on account of race and, in combination with various workplace incidents, created a racially hostile work environment.

​

Reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on Diemert’s hostile work environment claims, the panel held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Diemert and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, he established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and WLAD. To succeed on a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he was subjected to verbal or physical conduct because of his race, (2) that the conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive work environment. The panel concluded that the workplace incidents at issue were sufficiently numerous, frequent, and severe to create a triable issue as to the existence of a racially hostile work environment.

​

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to constructive discharge, which Diemert alleged as part of his hostile work environment and retaliation claims.

​

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on Diemert’s claims that he was subjected to disparate treatment and retaliation as a result of: (1) the City’s failure to investigate his discrimination claims; (2) the City’s initial denial of a leave extension under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and (3) his supervisor’s unfair treatment toward him.

​

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on Diemert’s equal protection claim based on Article III standing. Diemert was required to establish a triable issue that (1) the City expressly classified employees based on race and (2) he was personally injured by that classification. Assuming without deciding that Diemert established a triable issue that racially aligned affinity groups in the Race and Social Justice Initiative involved an express racial classification, the panel concluded that he did not establish a triable issue that he was personally injured by any such classification. And even assuming that the City expressly classified employees based on race with respect to some trainings, Diemert did not show that he was personally injured by the classification. The panel therefore concluded that Diemert failed to establish standing for his equal protection claim.

​

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/28/25-1188.pdf