It’s been a while since we posted about former Penn State Professor Zack De Piero, who filed a federal lawsuit against Penn State for forcing him to attend DEI trainings so radical in nature that they allegedly created a hostile work environment.From our initial post in August 2023: Penn State Prof Sues School for Allegedly ‘Discriminating Against Him for Being White’:
This professor brings up the ‘anti-racist’ movement at the school, and we all know what that means.Campus Reform reports:
Penn State English prof sues university for discriminating against him for being White
Zack K. De Piero, a White English professor formerly employed by Penn State University, Abington, resigned from his position and filed a federal lawsuit against the university, alleging discrimination based on his race.After De Piero was hired, he said he almost immediately felt pressure from faculty to conform to their political viewpoints and was expected to teach “that the English language itself is ‘racist’ and, furthermore, that white supremacy exists in the teaching of writing of English,” his lawsuit reads.“As time went on, the ‘antiracist’ movement continued gaining more power and traction at Penn State Abington to the point of pretty much becoming entrenched in the centralized mission of the school,” De Piero said in an interview with Campus Reform.“After I raised important questions about it during various meetings, my personal relationships with Abington colleagues dwindled down to only a few people,” he added.The lawsuit says that the “antiracist” activism of the defendants reached a high after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.During a Zoom meeting on June 5, 2020, faculty were led through a breathing exercise when white and non-Black people of color were asked to hold their breath “to feel the pain” of their Black counterparts.According to the lawsuit, De Piero received multiple emails from supervisors of the writing program at Penn State Abington in October 2020 to watch a video entitled “White Teachers Are a Problem.”
You may, or may not, be surprised to find out that Penn State’s first tactic was to file a motion to dismiss, basically arguing that DEI/CRT trainings and other requirements could not constitute a hostile work environment.
Fortunately, in January 2024, the presiding federal judge disagreed: Federal Judge Rules DEI/CRT Trainings and Policies Can Violate Federal Law:
In an important development in the battle against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT), a federal judge has ruled that DEI/CRT trainings and policies can be so one-sided and discriminatory that they can constitute a “hostile work environment” for white employees subjected to them.From Fox Digital: Obama judge rules CRT trainings can violate federal law after it traumatized White teacher:
An Obama-appointed judge ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania college professor who sued his employer over critical race theory trainings he alleged were anti-White, including one that said “White Teachers are a Problem,” according to a lawsuit.A former professor at Penn State Abington, Zack De Piero, sued for race discrimination after he was allegedly subjected to training that the English language is racist and the embodiment of “White supremacy,” along with additional tirades against White people in professional development sessions and meetings, according to a lawsuit.
Apparently, this caused De Piero significant trauma:
“There’s a constant ticker tape, like a newsreel. I see, I hear that disgusting evil phrase. ‘White teachers are a problem,’” he said. “I wish I could get it out of my head, but I can’t.”“I still wake up with this stuff. I still go to bed with this stuff. It still bothers me. It’s changed me in a lot of ways. You often hear that hardship leads to greater character. While that might be true, it certainly comes at a cost,” he said.
The judge in the case, Wendy Beetlestone, ruled as follows:
Taken together, these allegations plausibly amount to “pervasive” harassment that…has stated a plausible claim for a hostile-work environment based on race.To be clear, discussing in an educational environment the influence of racism on our society does not necessarily violate federal law….But the way these conversations are carried out in the workplace matters: When employers talk about race—any race,—with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language, they risk liability under federal law.For the reasons set forth above, [Penn State’s] Motion to Dismiss will be denied with respect to his hostile work environment theory of liability pressed under Title VII [and other federal statutes].[emphasis added]
Good news, right? Well, not so fast.
After more than a year of discovery, legal wrangling, and Penn State filing for summary judgment — essentially asking the court to rule in its favor without a trial, Judge Beetlestone threw out De Piero’s case.
From Judge Beetlestone’s order, which you can review here, and at the end of this post:
De Piero alleges that Defendants violated Title VII…by “creat[ing] a racially hostile environment” at Penn State Abington…Title VII…renders employers liable for workplace harassment that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the plaintiff’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.”“[S]evere” harassment and “pervasive” harassment are not the same thing. The terms represent two distinct types of hostile work environment claims. “[S]ome harassment may be severe enough to contaminate an environment even if not pervasive; other, less objectionable, conduct will contaminate the workplace only if it is pervasive.” Thus, in certain circumstances, a single incident can support a hostile work environment claim. But in other cases, plaintiffs seek to remedy “the cumulative effect of a thousand cuts,” and acts “which are not individually actionable” but “may be aggregated to make out a . . . claim.”The events underlying De Piero’s claim, while unpleasant to him, [were not] sufficiently “extreme” to sustain his charge of “severe” harassment…De Piero’s remaining hostile work environment claims therefore rest on a theory of pervasive harassment. Pervasive harassment is demonstrated by “a continuous period” of misconduct…[but] while the complained-of conduct undoubtedly “engender[ed] offensive feelings” in De Piero, no rational trier of fact could determine that he was subjected to the “steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments” required to sustain his pervasive harassment claim…For the reasons set forth above, no reasonable jury could determine that the twelve incidents at issue here constitute “a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language” that warrants his hostile work environment claims to go to trial. Thus, summary judgment shall be granted in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.[many citations omitted for clarity]
And the court closed the case.
So last week, Professor De Piero appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
We (either the Legal Insurrection Foundation or the Equal Protection Project) are strongly considering filing an amicus curiae, or “friend-of-the-court,” brief in the case explaining the heinous nature of DEI and its impact on those subjected to it.
This is especially so since the Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services holding that raising the bar for so-called “majority” (read: White) plaintiffs is improper. Because this SCOTUS opinion, which you can review here, was not available when Judge Beetlestone issued her order throwing De Piero’s case out, it might help to view the case in light of Ames and see if indeed maybe De Piero was subjected to a hostile work environment, or at least has enough there to go to trial.
We will keep you informed.
Judge Beetlestone’s Order throwing out Professor De Piero’s case:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY