How to address employees that refuse unconscious bias training

A company fired an employee who objected to completing mandatory unconscious bias training. He claimed retaliation, but an appellate court disagreed and dismissed his lawsuit.

I’ll explain why.

In 2020, a company official emailed all employees with the subject line: “Continue to Fight for Social Justice.” In the body of the email, the official stated that he “can only imagine how our Black colleagues are feeling” following a grand jury’s recent decision not to indict police officers involved in the death of a Black woman. He further stressed, “Racial bias is real. Don’t kid yourself. Each of us has unconscious bias within us.” He also promised the unit would “take tangible actions to make a difference,” including “listening sessions,” “upping our game when hiring, ensuring 100% of the time that the interview panel and candidates are diverse,” and “other actions.”

In conclusion, he remarked, “My hands and heart are open to each of our Black, Hispanic, Asian, and LGBTQ colleagues. I stand with you.” One month later, the company implemented mandatory online unconscious bias training, which all employees had to complete by a specific deadline.

None of this sat well with the plaintiff, who refused the training despite reminders from the company. HR, too, reminded the plaintiff that training was mandatory. He responded, “I AM NOT taking this training because it’s a joke,” claiming the company was “turning his white colleagues … into villains.” The plaintiff’s manager explained to him that the training included a video of a white male subjected to unconscious bias. A Vice President encouraged the plaintiff to take the training, emphasizing that failing to do so would be considered insubordination. However, despite this warning and encouragement from others, the plaintiff refused and was terminated. So, he sued for retaliation.

And he lost.

To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he engaged in a protected activity, i.e., he reasonably believed that the action he opposed — here, the mandatory training — violated the law.

“This makes sense,” noted the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. “To permit otherwise would encourage the filing of utterly baseless charges by preventing employers from disciplining the employees who made them.”

But how could the plaintiff objectively complain about the training when he failed to view it and did not know its contents? Ironically, he assumed the training would vilify white people and treat people differently based on their race. But it didn’t. The training featured a white victim of unconscious bias.

“A belief is not objectively reasonable if it requires rejecting such concrete information in favor of conjecture,” concluded the Seventh Circuit.

Mandatory unconscious bias can be critical to an overall anti-harassment training effort. Making it optional for some undermines the company’s commitment to maintaining a harassment-free workplace, which could erase certain defenses to discrimination lawsuits from real victims. However, ensure that the training is fair and balanced, and preview a training outline for employees to avoid these types of claims in your workplace.