Kent State University did not discriminate against a tenured English professor when it denied them a promotion and relocation to the university’s main campus, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 12.
“I wasn’t particularly surprised by that [ruling],” said G. R. Patterson, a tenured English assistant professor at the university’s Tuscarawas campus and the plaintiff in the case. “My main motivation … is that there is now a public paper trail where there was not one before.”
Kent State declined to comment on the ruling, saying it preferred to let the court’s decision speak for itself.
Patterson filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging the university discriminated against them because of their gender identity when it denied them a promotion and relocation to Kent State’s main campus.
Patterson maintains that the university’s decision was influenced by their gender identity as the first openly nonbinary tenured professor and one of the first transgender faculty members with union protection, a claim both the district and appellate courts ultimately rejected.
Patterson’s reallocated role would have included leadership of the Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and involvement in developing the gender studies major. The lawsuit also claimed retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron initially granted summary judgment in favor of the university on all claims. The appeals court affirmed that decision.
According to the filing in the case, Dean Mandy Munro-Stasiuk of the College of Arts and Sciences and Julie Mazzei, associate professor and director of the School of Multidisciplinary Social Sciences and Humanities, were among the administrators Patterson criticized.
The appellate panel found that Kent State had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying Patterson’s campus tenure-transfer application. He was found to have sent offensive communications, including tweets, emails and texts directed at university administrators.
“So to sum up, Patterson condemned both Mazzei and Munro-Stasiuk as ‘transphobe[s]’ and ‘cishet white ladies in charge, with [no] content expertise,’ engaged in ‘F*ckery,’ ‘shit,’” Judge John Nalbandian wrote in the court’s opinion.
The court noted that the record clearly showed Patterson’s communications were disparaging and profane, creating a hostile work environment that violated university policies.
“Patterson sent rude and profanity-laced tweets, emails and texts insulting Munro-Stasiuk and Mazzei, including disparaging references to their race, sex and occupations,” Nalbandian wrote.
According to the opinion, those actions, not Patterson’s gender identity, formed the basis for the university’s decisions regarding promotion and assignment.
In response, Patterson said the university is using what they described as a rhetorical technique called “DARVO,” an acronym for “deny or distract, attack and reverse victim and offender,” which they said is often used by those in power to protect themselves.
They said this is one of the reasons they were glad the case created a public record.
“Now I know that anyone who is curious about just what happened can really dip into those depositions and go, ‘Oh, dang, that’s not what happened at all,’” Patterson said.
The case revolves around protections guaranteed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on transgender identity.
Patterson’s lawsuit sought to apply that precedent to argue the university’s actions were discriminatory. The courts, however, found no evidence that the denial of promotion was based on Patterson’s gender identity.
Nalbandian’s opinion states that the Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Committee voted against Patterson’s promotion after considering their withdrawal from university service, negative interactions with other faculty members and the overall needs of departments.
“The legitimate, non-discriminatory concern [was] that if we accept a lateral tenure transfer at this time, when we don’t have an existing need to fill, we may not be able to hire an outside candidate in the event we do have a need a year from now or two years from now,” Daniel Rudary said on behalf of Kent State during oral arguments.
Patterson also argued that the university punished them for protesting discriminatory practices online, violating their First Amendment rights.
“I’m having off-work private conversations, and those become very important for transgender faculty in particular because it’s not like there’s ever a cluster hire of us — we’re all scattered across the United States,” Patterson said.
The court ruled that First Amendment protections did not apply because the communications were internal and disparaging, not matters of public concern.
“Put simply, ‘complaining about your boss and coworkers is not protected by the First Amendment just because you work for the government,’” Nalbandian wrote.
The case emphasizes how workplace speech can fall outside First Amendment protection when it targets colleagues or disrupts the work environment.
For Patterson, the fight isn’t over.
“There are still legal remedies that we could pursue,” Patterson said. “And they are on the table.”
Gavin Zivoder is a reporter. Contact him at [email protected].