Cases & Developments

Memorandum and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, an employee at Fort Hays State University brought claims of race discrimination under Title VII, § 1983, and § 1981 against the University. Plaintiff, who is Black, was employed at the University’s campus in China when he applied to transfer to a position on the main campus in Kansas. According to plaintiff, he was the “perfect fit” for the position, but did not receive an interview. Therefore, after the University hired a White male for the role, plaintiff brought claims alleging a race-based failure to promote and asserted that faculty members of color were overrepresented in international appointments and had been similarly denied opportunities for lateral transfer to the University’s main, domestic campus. The Court permitted plaintiff’s claims to proceed, finding that plaintiff adequately alleged he (1) is a member of a protected class due to his race; (2) applied for a position to which he was qualified; and (3) was rejected from that position in favor of a candidate of a different race. While acknowledging the broad and general nature of plaintiff’s claims, the court found that they were sufficient to state a plausible claim at this early stage but expressly noted that plaintiff must now adduce facts establishing his own credentials equaled or exceeded that of the successful candidate.  

Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, an association with members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and two individual MIT students, brought Title VI deliberate indifference, 42 U.S.C. §1986 failure to prevent a conspiracy, and contract and negligence claims against the University, alleging that it responded inadequately to protests in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss the deliberate indifference claim, the court found that although the operative complaint “compellingly depicts a campus embroiled in an internecine conflict that caused Jewish and Israeli students great anguish,” the facts alleged were inconsistent with the assertion that the University’s response was “largely … one of inaction.” In dismissing the §1986 claim, the court found that although the complaint sufficiently alleged that the protesting groups had acted in concert, it failed to raise “a plausible inference that the groups agreed to plan the events ‘at least in part for the purpose of’ depriving plaintiffs of their civil rights.” The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims.