How Anti-harassment Training in the Workplace Can Go Wrong

March 6, 2024

Walking a Fine Line



By Trevor Brice, Esq.

As Massachusetts employers know, one of the best defenses to a discrimination or retaliation suit is to implement preventive measures. One of the most commonplace of these preventive measures is anti-harassment training courses for the workforce that can show the employer is in compliance with state and federal law.


However, a recent case shows that this preventive measure, while it is virtually always a helpful addition to an employer’s preventive measures against discrimination and retaliation, can go too far if not managed or implemented properly.

 

Anti-harassment Training Can Benefit the Workplace


Generally, anti-harassment training is a helpful addition the employer’s tool chest for preventive measures against discrimination and harassment. It gives employees the tools to be able to identify situations in which employees are harassed, discriminated against, and/or retaliated against; identify the classes upon which discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are illegal; and utilize the employer’s reporting procedures to prevent further discrimination, harassment, and retaliation when it is identified.


When deployed properly, anti-harassment training has the effect of creating, at the very least, a discussion in an educational environment about the influence of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation within the workplace.


Anti-harassment training also makes for an open forum in which employees can learn basic concepts that will make for a safer and inclusive environment that will help to prevent illegal discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The court in the recent case of De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University acknowledged the positives in anti-harassment trainings, stating that “training on concepts such as ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important conversations about how to form a healthy and inclusive working environment.”


Anti-harassment Training Can Create a Hostile Work Environment


However, the court in De Piero also pointed to a more novel concept, that anti-harassment training can make for a hostile work environment. The plaintiff in De Piero sued on the hostile work environment theory, stating that he had to attend at least five conferences or trainings that discussed racial issues in “essentialist and deterministic terms, ascribing negative traits to white people or white teachers without exception and as flowing inevitably from their race.”


In order to prove hostile work environment, the plaintiff had to prove that he suffered intentional discrimination because of his protected status; the discrimination was severe or pervasive, it detrimentally affected him, and it would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances (Castleberry v. STI Grp.).


In this case, the defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, stating that the anti-harassment training did not create a severe or pervasive work environment and that it did not interfere with the plaintiff’s work performance.


However, the plaintiff succeeded, with the court ruling that the plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to go forward with his hostile work environment claim. Specifically, the court stated that the plaintiff “was obligated to attend conferences or trainings that discussed racial issues in essentialist or deterministic term, ascribing negative traits to white people or white teachers without exception.”


The court pointed out a training in which the trainer in the anti-harassment conference forced the plaintiff and other white and non-Black people to hold their breath longer to feel pain. It is this and other examples from the defendant’s anti-harassment training that led the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim could survive.


Conclusion


While the De Piero decision points to how employers can have possible liability when implementing preventive measures, employers should not abandon anti-harassment training and other preventive measures. The court specifically stated that anti-harassment training can aid employers and that “discussing in an educational environment the influence of racism on our society does not violate federal law.”


The takeaway from the De Piero decision is therefore not to eliminate anti-harassment training, but to instead emphasize that the communication and substance of these trainings matter and that anti-harassment trainings can violate federal law if not implemented properly. If employers have questions or concerns about their anti-harassment training following this decision, it is prudent to contact employment counsel.


 This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click the link here.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.