The proliferation of mandatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) trainings in workplaces since 2020 has generated a raft of lawsuits nationwide.

One notable case, still ongoing, has been filed in Oklahoma.

The Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University School of Law reports that 114 lawsuits have been filed nationwide challenging DEI training, including four cases based on directors’ duties, eight cases focused on diversity targets, seven cases focused on diversity training, 13 cases arguing the training infringes upon citizens’ constitutional freedom of speech and religion, 22 cases focused on government programs, five cases related to school and university admissions, 37 cases involving targeted programs, and 23 cases alleging workplace discrimination.

One case in Oklahoma argues not only that workplace DEI trainings may cause harm to employees and reduce workplace cohesiveness, but also that the trainings violate state regulation of psychology.

In 2021, William (Chad) Ellis was employed as a research chemist by Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in Bartlesville. He had 10 years of experience. In addition to holding a Ph.D., Ellis is also a member of the Science Advisory Board to Washington and Lee University and past chair of the local section of the American Chemical Society.

On Oct. 18, 2021, Ellis was compelled to attend a meeting/staff training where employees were required to watch certain DEI videos and then discuss them afterwards.

In his brief in chief, filed on Jan. 24, 2024, Ellis referred to the event as a “psychological video series prepared by Denise Hamilton, a bachelor level social worker and Texas commercial real estate broker.”

Ellis alleged that Hamilton “pirated without appropriate education or training psychological modalities and methodologies.” His brief also described the training as “an unlicensed person malpracticing deceptive psychology leveraged by a negligent human resource (HR) and management cadre at Chevron Phillips.”

“Mr. Ellis’ adverse reaction to the video was not an outlier,” the brief stated, noting that during the training Hamilton bluntly stated that attendees “may get angry” or “are going to leave angry.”

“The videos gratuitously attacked captive employees’ core values and beliefs, yet as noted above, Ms. Hamilton was almost flippant about those profound dangers,” Ellis’ brief stated.

Because workplace managers were put in charge of post-video employee discussions, and those managers had no training in psychological or mental health issues, Ellis’ brief argued there was a significant chance of employees facing undue pressure and potential harm.

“An employee could easily be mislabeled when no real problem exists, or when they raise an objection that is misunderstood, or when they reacted based on stress from the past or from outside of work,” the brief stated.

Ellis’ lawsuit argued that the techniques used in the training are effectively the unlicensed practice of psychology, and that the Oklahoma Psychology Board has failed to regulate the industry by ignoring individuals using psychological techniques during DEI trainings.

The board has argued it complied with existing state law in dismissing the complaint Ellis filed with the Oklahoma Psychology Board in July 2022.

Ellis provided a letter to the Oklahoma Psychology Board, which was also included in later court filings, in which a psychologist echoed Ellis’ concerns about the Chevron training.

Thomas H. Costello, a research psychologist, stated that after reviewing the videos used at the Chevron training, “I write to express my apprehension. Techniques with the potential to elicit deleterious psychological consequences are used throughout the program. These techniques bear a strong resemblance to both (1) interventions used by licensed clinicians to treat mental disorders and (2) social-psychological paradigms known to elicit attitude change and emotional distress.”

Costello noted the video used in the Chevron training that Ellis attended described the death of George Floyd “in visceral language” and included statements such as, “As long as the hunter writes the story, the lion will never be the hero.”

“The videos go on to suggest that people should abandon their closely held beliefs about many topics, including law enforcement (e.g., by drawing comparisons between 9/11 first responders and perpetrators of police violence) and George Washington’s morality (e.g., with the narrator stating as fact, from a position of authority, the speculative possibility that George Washington used teeth ‘pulled from the mouths of slaves,’ before noting that ‘an honest debate’ can be had about whether he ‘is a hero or villain’),” Costello wrote. “Similarly, the narrator references the Holocaust before observing that the US turned away a ship holding Jewish refugees in the lead-up to World War II, using this event to explicitly challenge the ‘story’ that the US is dissimilar to Nazi Germany.”

Photo: chevronphillips Instagram

NOTE: The fourth paragraph from the end of this article has been revised since publication to better describe the qualifications of an expert witness.