Case Particulars

Tribunal

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Filed

August 20, 2025

Docket No.

No. 25-1952 (3d Cir.)

Case Status

Amicus Brief Supporting Appellant Filed

Case Overview

On August 20, 2025, the Equal Protection Project filed an amicus curiae, or “friend-of-the-court,” brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a case entitled De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 25-1952 (3d Cir.).

The case involves a Penn State professor who had to endure a heinous barrage of training, email, and other harassment.

De Piero sued Penn State in federal court, and scored an initial victory after federal district (trial-level) court Judge Wendy Beetlestone DENIED Penn State’s motion to dismiss, which had basically argued that diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) training cannot, as a matter of law, cause or contribute to a “hostile work environment.” The judge disagreed, saying that “the way these conversations [about race] are carried out in the workplace matters: When employers talk about race—any race [i.e. including White people]—with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language, they risk liability under federal law.” [emphasis added].

Unfortunately, about a year later, that same judge, said Penn State wins and that De Piero wasn’t subjected to a hostile work environment.

So De Piero appealed to the federal Third Circuit court of appeals, and on Wednesday, August 20, EPP filed an amicus brief supporting Professor De Piero, which you can review here.

In the brief EPP made three main arguments:

I. DEI training, as Judge Beetlestone said and as happened here, really can cause or contribute to a hostile work environment. We cited several studies that had come to this conclusion in an effort to assist the court in seeing that there is some serious research going on the destructive effects of DEI training programs.

II. Judge Beetlestone had relied on a case called Diemert v. City of Seattle, which on appeal EPP had also filed an amicus brief in, that was wrongly decided and so undermined, rather than bolstered, the grant of summary judgment in De Piero.

III. The facts here supported the idea that there was, in fact, a hostile work environment.

After briefing is complete, oral argument will be scheduled.