Plaintiff, a white man, alleges that Defendants had multiple hiring and funding programs that either used race as a qualification or favored non-white applicants and faculty. Plaintiff asserts that he was terminated due to complaining about the programs.

The hiring and funding programs are primarily used to increase faculty diversity across university departments. After complaining about the programs, Plaintiff was terminated. He claims that it was retaliation for speaking out even though the official explanation was that it was due to budget cuts. He asserts that he was one of two non-tenure-track faculty members who were selected for contract non-renewal. He was let go permanently, while the other faculty member, an Asian woman, was given another position within the college that was focused on DEI.

On May 6, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for the following reasons. 1) Plaintiff lacks standing because the relief he seeks will not address the alleged harm since he no longer works for the university; 2) the university and individual Defendants have immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; 3) the university and individual Defendants are not "persons" who can be sued under Section 1981 or 1983; and 4) the Section 1981 claim for injunctive relief against individual Defendants fails because Plaintiff didn't allege any actual involvement by the individuals.

On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff amended their complaint. As a result, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Right after this, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 6, 2025.

On July 25, 2025, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss with the same reasoning as the one they initially filed.

On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff responded to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argued that they did have standing to obtain injunctive relief since they alleged specific, ongoing racially discriminatory hiring and employment practices. Plaintiff asserted that he sought to continue working in academia and that the presence of these allegedly discriminatory practices creates a substantial risk of future harm. Plaintiff argues that his request for an injunction to stop these practices relates to his personal injury (alleged termination based on race). Plaintiff also argues that Defendants are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment since they are allegedly violating federal law and manage the implementation of the challenged policies. Lastly, Plaintiff argued that the Title VI claim against the university is valid because his complaint contained allegations of intentional racial discrimination and less favorable treatment due to race and gender.

On December 17, 2025, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in part. The court stated that the Plaintiff may proceed on his Title VI claims, but all other claims are dismissed.

On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed their third amended complaint.