From Accommodation to Retaliation: Mitigating Title VII Risks in DEI Training Pushback

An employee’s objection to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training does not automatically entitle the employee to an exemption, nor does it give an employer free rein to discipline the employee. An employer must navigate competing obligations under Title VII while evaluating the training itself, the employee’s stated concerns, and the potential consequences of the employer’s response.

DEI training has become a recent source of workplace controversy. Some employees object because they believe it unfairly characterizes white employees as racist or perpetuates racial stereotypes. Others object to LGBTQ-inclusive training because they believe its content conflicts with their religious convictions concerning sexuality, gender identity, or marriage.

Objections to DEI training often implicate the following legal issues:

• Whether the objection constitutes protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Whether the employee is entitled to a religious accommodation.
• Whether the training itself could support a discrimination or hostile work environment claim.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) addressed these issues in its guidance, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work. The guidance also clarifies a common misconception: DEI training is not per se unlawful.

Is an employee’s objection protected activity?

Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose employment practices they reasonably believe violate Title VII. But not every workplace disagreement, expression of discomfort, or objection to a company policy qualifies as protected activity.

Neither a religious objection to LGBTQ-inclusive training nor a belief that racial-bias training promotes stereotypes, standing alone, necessarily establishes protected opposition under Title VII.

The critical question is whether the employee has a fact-specific, objectively reasonable basis for believing the training constitutes unlawful discrimination.

The significance of Vavra v. Honeywell International

In Vavra v. Honeywell International, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered a retaliation claim brought by an employee who refused to complete mandatory unconscious-bias training.

The employee assumed the training would vilify white people and treat employees differently based on race. However, he never accessed the training or otherwise learned what it contained. The court concluded that his opposition was not protected activity because his belief that the training violated the law was speculative rather than objectively reasonable.

The EEOC’s current guidance similarly states that protected opposition may exist when an employee provides a fact-specific basis for believing that a DEI training violates the statute.

The practical lesson is that an employee’s objection should be evaluated based on what the employee actually knows about the training, not merely on assumptions about what DEI training generally entails. The employer should ask: What about the training’s contents are you objecting to?

Can DEI training create a hostile work environment?

Employers must also consider whether the training itself could create legal exposure.

The EEOC expressly addresses this question in its DEI guidance. Title VII prohibits harassment based on race, sex, religion, and other protected characteristics. Harassment is unlawful when it results in an adverse change to a term, condition, or privilege of employment, or when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment.

According to the EEOC, an employee may be able to assert a viable hostile-work-environment claim based on DEI training if the training is discriminatory in its content or application. Employers must review the actual training materials when an employee raises a specific concern. Counsel should examine the language used, the exercises and examples presented, the manner in which the training is delivered (e.g., separating employees by protected characteristics), and whether employees are instructed or pressured to treat others differently based on protected characteristics.

Religious objections require a different analysis

An employee may sincerely believe that certain statements about sexual orientation, gender identity, or marriage conflict with the employee’s faith. But a religious objection does not automatically establish a right to refuse any workplace instruction that conflicts with the employee’s beliefs.

Under Title VII, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

Accordingly, when an employee objects to mandatory LGBTQ-inclusive training on religious grounds, the employer should consider whether an accommodation is available. Depending on the circumstances, possible options might include modifying the training or allowing the employee to complete an alternative training that covers the same legitimate workplace objectives. Employers should also ask: Will this employee be able to interact respectfully with coworkers and customers who identify as LGBTQ?

The employer may have legitimate reasons for requiring training on nondiscrimination, respectful workplace conduct, and the treatment of coworkers and customers. An accommodation that eliminates the training’s essential objectives may not be reasonable. Undue hardship requires substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business. The analysis, however, should focus on the specific accommodation and its practical impact, not generalized discomfort or speculation about how other employees might react.

What to do when an employee refuses to attend.

Employers should not assume that all DEI training is lawful, that religious objections can be disregarded, or that discipline is risk-free whenever an employee refuses to comply.

When an employee refuses mandatory DEI training, the employer should:

1. Ask the employee to explain the objection.
2. Review the training materials.
3. Evaluate any religious accommodation request.
4. Address the employee’s workplace conduct separately.
5. Document a reasoned decision.

Employers that follow a thoughtful, fact-specific process will be better positioned to enforce legitimate workplace expectations while reducing the risk of discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims.