Employment Law Update: Tra-La-La-La-Lawsuit: Is Your Anti-Harassment Training Unlawful?
Date: January 8, 2026
By:
Lisa M. Brauner
In Chislett v. New York City Department of Education (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2025), a Caucasian employee alleged that mandatory implicit-bias training and spillover conduct created a racially hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and resulted in municipal liability under Monell. The Court vacated summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, holding that a jury could find that the employer’s anti-harassment training content and spillover conduct created a racially hostile environment—and that the employer’s persistent inaction could create liability.
According to the allegations the Court credited at summary judgment, training facilitators asserted that the “values of white culture are supremacist,” a senior New York City Department of Education (DOE) leader stated “there is white toxicity in the air, and we all breathe it in,” training slides listed traits of “internalized white superiority,” and participants were allegedly separated by race and physically lined up to illustrate the “dividing color line of privileges that favored whites.’” Messaging repeatedly characterized “white culture” as “defensive,” “entitled,” “paternalistic,” “privileged,” and “power hoarding.”
During Q&A, instructors told Chislett that her “interest in excellence” reflected “perfectionism consistent with white supremacy,” and participants called her a “horrible person” who should not work with children. Negative generalizations and stereotypes about white people were also targeted specifically at Chislett during the training. The Court also noted spillover into daily work: Chislett was called “white and fragile,” “racist,” and a “white dominant leader,” accused of acting from “white privilege,” and was told her “values” were suspect; supervisors allegedly did not intervene despite repeated complaints from Chislett.
The Court emphasized that training is not per se unlawful. The risk arises when content and delivery: (1) deploy essentialist, deterministic, or negative language about any protected group (including majority groups); (2) physically segregate or single out employees by race; or (3) penalize dissent, and when employer responses to complaints are indifferent. As the Court put it, what matters is “the way the trainings were conducted.” When a municipal employer “consistently ignores” racial harassment in training and workplace interactions, it can be held liable.
Why This Matters
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that employees in “majority” groups are not held to a higher evidentiary standard than members of minority groups when proving discrimination. Unlawful discrimination is unlawful regardless of the legally protected group affected. Chislett reinforces that point: “majority-group” employees can bring race-based hostile work environment claims that survive summary judgment.
For employers, the case is a timely reminder to ensure: (1) training content and training facilitation align with anti-discrimination laws and do not stereotype, vilify or single out employees by protected traits; and (2) complaints—especially training-related complaints—are taken seriously and addressed promptly.
If you would like assistance with the delivery of legally compliant workplace training or review of any “off-the-shelf” training to avoid potential legal pitfalls, please contact your Whiteford labor and employment attorney.
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.