Mandatory implicit bias training carries significant legal risk, as further highlighted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals's recent decision in the matter of Chislett v. New York City Department of Education, No. 24-972 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2025).
The Facts
Leslie Chislett, a former executive director for the New York City Department of Education (DOE), sued the DOE and its chancellor for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 As executive director of the DOE's "Advanced Placement for All" program, Chislett supervised 15 employees. Despite the program's achievements, she faced criticism from several subordinates for "holding employees of color back." Next, another subordinate reported Chislett to the DOE's Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management for "microaggressions" toward people of color. Chislett claimed that these racial tensions escalated after former Mayor Bill de Blasio appointed Richard Carranza as chancellor of the DOE in 2018.
As part of his equity agenda, Chancellor Carranza rolled out mandatory implicit bias training for all DOE staff — including Chislett. Among other things, these trainings included statements characterizing white culture as defensive, entitled, paternalistic, power-hoarding, and privileged. One session included an exercise that singled out staff by race. The themes from these trainings percolated into the workplace, with employees invoking the language introduced in the sessions when addressing Chislett.
Chislett sued under three theories: (1) she was demoted pursuant to a policy that made race a determinative factor in employment decisions; (2) she suffered a hostile work environment fostered by mandatory implicit bias training; and (3) she was constructively discharged. The trial court granted summary judgement to the DOE and Carranza on all three claims, reasoning that Chislett failed to demonstrate the existence of a municipal policy linked to her demotion, the alleged hostile work environment, or her purported constructive discharge.
The Ruling
While the Second Circuit upheld the district court's summary judgment on Chislett's demotion and constructive-discharge claims, finding that she failed to rebut testimony about her negative evaluations, the appellate court reached a different answer on whether the DOE's implicit bias training contributed to a hostile work environment.
While the Second Circuit avoided any "suggest[ion] that the conduct of implicit bias trainings is per se racist," the court held that reasonable jurors could disagree as to whether the incidents alleged by Chislett would have adversely altered her working conditions. As the court explained, not every unpleasant or biased comment constitutes harassment, but the law protects employees from repeated or severe conduct. In Chislett's case, the allegations of ongoing racial hostility during the training sessions and at work thereafter, as well as the trainers' negative generalizations and stereotypes about white people, were sufficient to make a reasonable person feel targeted because of race.
The court also found that the hostility could be attributed to the DOE, not just individual employees. Since senior leadership knew about Chislett's complaints but did nothing to stop the behavior, and since the trainings were part of a department-wide "equity agenda," the court further concluded that the racial hostility Chislett experienced could be attributed to the DOE itself as a "custom of complicity," even if it was not a stated policy.
Takeaways for Employers
The Second Circuit's decision offers important lessons on how even well-intentioned training efforts can generate legal risks. Employers should consider the following steps:
- Avoid training sessions that single out employees or make generalizations based on race or any other protected characteristic, consistent with the Second Circuit's opinion and current law.
- Consider periodic workplace climate surveys to identify and remediate areas of tension among the workforce.
- Designate appropriate points of contact for questions or concerns related to diversity and inclusion, and ensure that those employees are equipped to respond effectively and in line with the Second Circuit's guidance.
Footnotes
1. Among other things, Section 1983 allows public employees to sue municipal entities for employment discrimination.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
