Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white woman who was appointed interim director of the Multicultural Student Services Department (the Department), alleged that her former employer, the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, discriminated and retaliated against her under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff contends that the University demoted her from her leadership position, refused to stop racially discriminatory comments about her presence in the Department, forced her to transfer to a different department, and then retaliated in various ways against her for filing a racial discrimination complaint. Plaintiff alleged that following her appointment as interim director, students, faculty, and staff objected to her appointment because she was white, questioning whether she “can do as effective a job as a person of color, within a space for people of color.” Plaintiff was then removed as interim director and made the assistant director instead. Criticism of the Department’s staff continued as an alumni group posted online that the Department was “overwhelmingly white” and that “positions of decision-making authority were being strategically replaced by white folks.” Additionally, over 100 faculty members signed an open letter expressing concerns about the “marginalization” of students served by the Department, the resignation of staff who served those students, and the “disregard for collaboration and shared governance” in the Department. While University leadership was aware of the online remarks and the faculty letter, plaintiff maintains that they did not speak against it. Plaintiff further alleged that she experienced discrimination within the Department in her relationships with faculty and staff, when non-white faculty and staff held three meetings during the spring and summer of 2022 and excluded plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that some staff members refused to communicate with her after she was named assistant director and was told “everyone’s questioning your legitimacy in this office.” Plaintiff allegedly reported to human resources in July 2022 that she wanted to file a racial discrimination complaint about her experiences in the Department but was instead offered transfer to another department as a resolution. Plaintiff also asserted a hostile work environment claim regarding the criticism from the campus community about appointing white people to departmental leadership, and that the University discriminated against her based on her race when it demoted her from the interim director position, transferred her to another department, and removed her as the instructor from a course. The court dismissed the hostile work environment claim, finding that plaintiff showed nothing more than “relatively isolated instances of non-severe misconduct,” which were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of her employment. The court permitted the discrimination claim to proceed, reasoning that although plaintiff did not suffer losses in title or salary, a reasonable jury could find that the loss of her leadership responsibilities was “harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Finally, it found that a reasonable jury could find that losing leadership responsibilities would deter an ordinary employee from complaining about discrimination, and thus, plaintiff’s retaliation claim may proceed.  

U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced investigations into Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review based on reports of alleged race-based discrimination in the operations of the journal. Specifically, allegations were made attributing a statement to the Law Review’s editor including that they wrote that it was “concerning” that “[f]our of the five people” who wanted to reply to an article about police reform “are white men.” Additionally, concerns were reported about another editor suggested “that a piece should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority.” In the announcement of the investigation, the Department wrote that “[t]he allocation of opportunities or recognition based on race can deprive other students of educational opportunities to which they would be entitled by merit, which is unacceptable for recipients of federal funding.” Both the Department and HHS will investigate the University’s relationship with the journal, including financial ties, oversight procedures, selection policies, and other documentation for both membership and article publication.