Plaintiff Joshua Diemert, a white man and employee of the City of Seattle, alleged that the City discriminated against him because of his race. He claimed that the City's DEI program (Race and Social Justice Initiative) created a hostile working environmentand that he was retaliated against after he filed a complaint with the EEOC.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant's initiative classified employees by race, and that this along with various workplace incidents resulted in a hostile work environment. The initiative aimed to undo institutionalized racism and achieve racial equity in City government and the Seattle community. It didn't use racial quotas, but assessed its programs for barriers to entry and sought to level the playing field for everyone. The initiative offered workplace activities that included trainings and events regarding racial and social justice issues. All employees within Plaintiff's division were required to participate in two initiative activities a year, however if they didn't it would not impact their performance evaluations. Defendant also offered voluntary affinity groups.

On August 28, 2023, the court partially granted and partially denied the City’s motion to dismiss. The court held that Plaintiff Diemert had stated a plausible Equal Protection claim regarding the City’s affinity group policy that encouraged employees to attend different trainings based on their race, and also held that Plaintiff had stated a plausible hostile-work environment claim based on alleged offensive and abusive comments and actions directed toward him. For example, Plaintiff alleged that in 2016 he was berated by his manager and told that it was impossible to be racist towards white people. Plaintiff also alleged that in 2017 his supervisor told him to step down from his role due to a conflict between his FMLA and business needs. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisor told him that he was preventing a person of color from being promoted by remaining in his role, and as a result he stepped down. However, the court dismissed some claims as falling outside the statute of limitations.

On August 16, 2024, the City filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it "never penalized Plaintiff at all" and that he resigned "voluntarily, and not because of any mistreatment by the City." In response, Diemert argued that key facts remained in dispute, warranting a trial, where a judge could potentially find that the City's DEI initiatives and training created a hostile work environment.

On February 10, 2025, the district court ruled in favor of the City of Seattle, holding that DEI programs aimed at addressing racial inequalities are not necessarily discriminatory against white people, and that in this instance, Diemert's claims lacked the specificity and factual support to make a claim of a hostile-work environment.

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 28, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision in part and reversed in part. The court of appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims. The court of appeals concluded that Plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. As to all other claims, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision.