In my last blog, “DEI Run Amok: First Thing We Do, Let’s Get Rid of the White Guys,” I addressed the dangers an employer faces when it purges white employees from the workforce in the pursuit of DEI objectives. Today, we address the opposite – employees who refuse to participate in DEI initiatives, like unconscious bias training, on the grounds that it vilifies white people and itself constitutes race discrimination. 

In Vavra v. Honeywell International, Inc. (7^th Cir. 2024), John Waldron, the President and CEO of the company, sent an email to all employees seeking to address “social justice” and racial bias. In it, he commented that everyone has unconscious bias and promised to “take tangible actions to make a difference,” including mandatory unconscious bias training. Vavra refused to participate in the training. He claimed that Waldron’s email was itself racist and made all of his non-white colleagues victims and all of his white colleagues villains. Despite repeated requests and assurances from employees who participated in the training that the contents of the program were not racist, Vavra persisted in his refusal and was terminated. He then filed a retaliation claim under Title VII, alleging that he was terminated for opposing conduct he believed was discriminatory.

The court rejected Vavra’s claim. It noted that, in order for conduct to be protected, an employee must have an “objectively reasonable belief that the conduct [he] opposed violated the law.” For a belief to be “objectively reasonable,” the employee must have some knowledge of the conduct he is opposing. Thus, for Vavra’s conduct to be protected, it had to have been based upon actual knowledge of the contents of the training program, rather than an assumption based on its subject matter and Waldron’s email – particularly in light of comments from co-workers about the contents of the program. “A belief is not objectively reasonable if it requires rejecting concrete evidence in favor of conjecture.” The court thus found that Vavra’s refusal to participate in the training was not protected opposition.

The court also rejected Vavra’s claim that he was terminated for opposing Waldron’s email, which was also protected activity. The court found that, regardless of whether Vavra’s opposition to the email was protected, there was no causal connection between his “opposition” and the reason for his termination (i.e., refusal to participate in the training).

So, what have we learned? Despite their laudable objectives, DEI initiatives – which are themselves founded in categories protected under Title VII (e.g., race, color, sex, national origin) present employers and employees alike with risk under Title VII. Tread carefully.

Questions? Contact attorney Alan Senezcko by email or at (262) 560-9696-