The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University
Overview
A white professor has brought a race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claim, arguing that his university's anti-racism policy and trainings created an intolerable and abusive environment that forced him to resign.
Details
Plaintiff also claims that he was forced to engage in illegal race discrimination to comport with the school's "race-based dogma" and was punished for speaking out against the university's policies.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to show that he was treated differently or unfairly compared to non-white individuals in similar situations or that he had suffered any negative job consequences, which are needed to show racial discrimination.
On January 11, 2024, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims related to differential treatment but did not dismiss the hostile work environment claim. The court also dismissed Plaintiff's claim that the university retaliated against him when he voiced his opinions in opposition to the anti-racism policy and trainings.
On October 21, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the “discussions about race in light of George Floyd’s murder were occasional, almost entirely voluntary, and not perceived to be discriminatory by any other faculty member within the Writing Program.”
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Status
Filed June 14, 2023 | Ongoing
Relevant Law
Section 1981Section 1983Title VIIFirst AmendmentTitle VIPennsylvania Human Relations Act
Significance
This case implications for whether anti-DEI employees can bring viable claims based on how employers respond to criticisms of DEI programming.