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.

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 race discrimination claims related to unequal treatment but did not dismiss the hostile work environment claim. The court also dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, in which he alleged that the university retaliated against him for expressing opposition to its anti-racism policy and trainings.

On October 21, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, 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.” In response, Plaintiff argued that there were still important facts in dispute that required a trial to resolve the matter and that a jury or judge could ultimately conclude at trial that the University's alleged actions and policies created a hostile work environment.

On March 6, 2025, the district court granted Defendants' request for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims. The court ruled that no reasonable jury could find the facts presented by Plaintiff to be "severe" and "pervasive" enough to prove a racially hostile work environment. The court also said that it would consider (on its own and without request from Defendants') granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants regarding the outstanding Title VII retaliation claim. In that claim, Plaintiff alleged that he was reprimanded and ultimately fired for reporting a "pervasive environment of racial harassment". The court asked Plaintiff to provide evidence and arguments explaining why it shouldn't rule in Defendants' favor.

On April 16, 2025 the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the retaliation claim, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff was reprimanded or fired because of the complaints he made.