EEOC Sues Wash U. For Firing Employee Who Complained About DEI Policy
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a federal lawsuit against Washington University in St. Louis, claiming the school unlawfully terminated an employee after she spoke out against a mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
According to the complaint, an African American senior program manager at the university’s Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center was divided from her colleagues by race during a required session organized by the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. She had previously expressed that such separation would make her uncomfortable. After raising internal objections about the training and later submitting a formal charge to the EEOC, the university ultimately eliminated her position.
Acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine Eschbach pointed to the contradiction in the situation, noting that a Black employee who warned in advance about discomfort with being separated from white colleagues during DEI instruction was nevertheless subjected to exactly that treatment. Once she filed her EEOC charge, the employer moved to end her role.
David S. Davis, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District, stressed that federal protections cover employees who raise concerns about discriminatory workplace practices, whether those concerns are voiced internally or externally.
This is not the first time the university’s DEI approaches have drawn official attention. Earlier, America First Legal submitted a lengthy civil rights complaint accusing the institution of maintaining policies that continued to conflict with federal guidance. Those included requirements for diversity statements in faculty hiring, race-based classroom segregation in the business school, and the prioritization of more than $3.1 billion in federal research grants according to racial criteria.
An attorney with America First Legal described the university’s actions as an effort to preserve prohibited practices through rebranding and bureaucratic adjustments rather than genuine compliance, arguing that the school should function as a center of higher learning rather than a vehicle for ideological training.
Eschbach further underscored that workers are entitled to challenge racially discriminatory elements of their employment—including training programs—without facing punishment.
