July 2025 – Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP obtained a favorable ruling on behalf of a former tenured professor and Chair of the Department of Architecture at the University of Virginia who was terminated from his employment after false allegations of misconduct led to findings of responsibility in Correa v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia et al (case 3:24-cv-00065-RSB-JCH). The Plaintiff commenced an action against UVA and two of its employees alleging the University breached his employment contract and discriminated against him on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in carrying out its investigative and adjudicative processes. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On July 23, 2025, Judge Ballou of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied in large part the motion to dismiss, permitting the Plaintiff’s claims for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII, sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX, breach of contract, and equal protection against UVA and the individual defendants in their official capacities for injunctive relief, to proceed to discovery.
Of particular significance was the Court’s discussion of Plaintiff’s employment contract relative to his breach of contract claim. The Court struck down UVA’s argument that its ability to unilaterally change the terms of its policies renders the agreement void of mutuality. Instead, simply stated, “UVA laid out specific procedures for opening a Title IX investigation, investigating alleged misconduct, and disciplining and removed tenured faculty ‘for cause.’ Accordingly, UVA made promises to its employees and is bound to keep them.” Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that UVA failed to do so.
Equally important was the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Title IX claim. UVA sought dismissal on the grounds that Title IX does not permit a private right of action for employees of educational institutions against their employers. Citing to Preston v. Virginia (941 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1991), the Court held that the Fourth Circuit has recognized that Title IX extends to employment discrimination on the basis of gender by educational institutions, requiring denial of the defendants’ motion on this basis as well.
Additionally, with respect to the equal protection claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court observed that “[w]hile the Fourth Circuit has held that equal protection claims of racial discrimination in employment are evaluated under the Title VII framework, it has never addressed whether gender or sexual orientation-based claim should be similarly evaluated.” The Court thus indicated its reliance on Title VII as the appropriate framework for purposes of the present motion. The Court went on to state that Plaintiff’s requests that his disciplinary record be expunged, and the record of his termination be removed were the type of prospective injunctive relief contemplated by Ex parte Young, thus depriving the defendants of eleventh amendment immunity. Further, citing Haywood v. Locke (387 F. App’x 355, 359 (4th Cir. 2010)) the Court observed that “Plaintiffs are not required as a matter of law to point to a similarly situated comparator to succeed on a discrimination claim.” Finding that Plaintiff had alleged a comparator sufficient to support a plausible claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and noting that an “evidentiary inquiry is not appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage,” the Court denied UVA’s motion as to the plaintiff’s equal protection claim on the basis of sexual orientation, as to the defendants in their official capacities. Relying on the same analysis, the Court also denied UVA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII claim based on sexual orientation discrimination.
This decision has brought clarity to university disciplinary cases in the Fourth Circuit which implicate an intersection of Title IX and Title VII discrimination claims.