That argument has become increasingly common in employment discrimination cases. It's also usually not enough.
But Chavers v. WestRock Services shows what happens when a plaintiff brings more than complaints about corporate diversity goals.
Brian Chavers, a white male, worked for WestRock for nearly 25 years. He had been a supervisor for more than a decade and, only months before his termination, was entrusted with plant-wide leadership training responsibilities.
WestRock fired him after a Black female employee accused him of harassment. The company also relied on a six-year-old "last chance agreement" that, according to testimony, ordinarily should have expired after one year.
Chavers sued, alleging that WestRock terminated him because of his race and sex. As part of his case, he pointed to the company's DEI program, which included representation goals and tied executive compensation to achieving them.
The court denied WestRock's motion for summary judgment.
But it did not hold that DEI programs are inherently discriminatory. Nor did it hold that representation goals prove discrimination against white men.
Instead, the court looked at the entire record.
A senior vice president had allegedly announced that the industry had "too many old white males" and that changes were coming. A former general manager testified that company leadership later used its DEI policy to treat older white men more harshly and target them for termination.
Chavers also offered evidence that several Black employees received repeated chances after misconduct, while WestRock resurrected his six-year-old agreement to justify firing him after one disputed incident.
Then there was the investigation—or lack of one.
The supposed decisionmaker conducted no independent investigation, could not identify what Chavers had actually said, and described the decision as "out of his hands." Other senior managers and HR personnel who normally participated in termination investigations said they had not been involved.
Finally, Chavers offered evidence that management had been warned not to stand "in the way of change in Montgomery."
Standing alone, any one of these facts might not have been enough. Together, the court concluded, they could allow a jury to find that race and sex played a role in the termination.
That distinction matters.
Title VII protects everyone, including white men. An employer cannot fire someone because it wants fewer employees of his race or sex any more than it can fire someone because it wants fewer Black employees or women.
But the mere existence of a DEI policy does not establish that discrimination occurred.
A company may lawfully seek a broader applicant pool, improve recruiting, identify barriers to advancement, and create a workplace in which employees from different backgrounds can succeed. Increased representation also does not, by itself, prove that anyone was unlawfully pushed out. Workforces change for countless legitimate reasons.
A plaintiff still needs evidence connecting the DEI program to the challenged employment decision.
Chavers had that connection—or at least enough evidence of one to get to a jury. He had arguably discriminatory statements, testimony about how the policy was implemented, potentially more favorable treatment of minority employees, suspicious departures from normal procedures, and weaknesses in the employer's stated reason for the termination.
That is the lesson for employers.
Your DEI program is not automatically illegal because a white male employee claims that it discriminated against him. But labels will not protect a program implemented through quotas, race-based decision-making, or selective discipline.
DEI may provide the backdrop for a discrimination claim. It should not provide the evidence that proves it.
WestRock fired him after a Black female employee accused him of harassment. The company also relied on a six-year-old "last chance agreement" that, according to testimony, ordinarily should have expired after one year.
Chavers sued, alleging that WestRock terminated him because of his race and sex. As part of his case, he pointed to the company's DEI program, which included representation goals and tied executive compensation to achieving them.
The court denied WestRock's motion for summary judgment.
But it did not hold that DEI programs are inherently discriminatory. Nor did it hold that representation goals prove discrimination against white men.
Instead, the court looked at the entire record.
A senior vice president had allegedly announced that the industry had "too many old white males" and that changes were coming. A former general manager testified that company leadership later used its DEI policy to treat older white men more harshly and target them for termination.
Chavers also offered evidence that several Black employees received repeated chances after misconduct, while WestRock resurrected his six-year-old agreement to justify firing him after one disputed incident.
Then there was the investigation—or lack of one.
The supposed decisionmaker conducted no independent investigation, could not identify what Chavers had actually said, and described the decision as "out of his hands." Other senior managers and HR personnel who normally participated in termination investigations said they had not been involved.
Finally, Chavers offered evidence that management had been warned not to stand "in the way of change in Montgomery."
Standing alone, any one of these facts might not have been enough. Together, the court concluded, they could allow a jury to find that race and sex played a role in the termination.
That distinction matters.
Title VII protects everyone, including white men. An employer cannot fire someone because it wants fewer employees of his race or sex any more than it can fire someone because it wants fewer Black employees or women.
But the mere existence of a DEI policy does not establish that discrimination occurred.
A company may lawfully seek a broader applicant pool, improve recruiting, identify barriers to advancement, and create a workplace in which employees from different backgrounds can succeed. Increased representation also does not, by itself, prove that anyone was unlawfully pushed out. Workforces change for countless legitimate reasons.
A plaintiff still needs evidence connecting the DEI program to the challenged employment decision.
Chavers had that connection—or at least enough evidence of one to get to a jury. He had arguably discriminatory statements, testimony about how the policy was implemented, potentially more favorable treatment of minority employees, suspicious departures from normal procedures, and weaknesses in the employer's stated reason for the termination.
That is the lesson for employers.
Your DEI program is not automatically illegal because a white male employee claims that it discriminated against him. But labels will not protect a program implemented through quotas, race-based decision-making, or selective discipline.
DEI may provide the backdrop for a discrimination claim. It should not provide the evidence that proves it.