Transgender Professor, Denied Reinstatement After Jury Win, Plans to Appeal
“We think the court was wrong,” Ezra Young said. “This was a situation where Dr. Tudor had a rare job, a tenure-track job, where you don't lose it no matter what. They tried to strip her of that and a jury agreed.”
April 19, 2018 at 07:51 PM
4 minute read
A transgender professor who won a $1.2 million jury verdict for alleged workplace discrimination and retaliation vows to appeal an Oklahoma federal judge's order that denied reinstatement to her former post.
Rachel Tudor, the professor, wanted to return to her tenure-track position at Southeastern Oklahoma State University after winning a jury verdict against the school.
U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron in the Western District of Oklahoma on April 13 denied reinstatement, as well as Tudor's request for $2 million in payment for loss of her future work opportunities if she could not return. Cauthron granted instead Tudor $60,000 in so-called “front pay.” The university has denied claims that it discriminated or retaliated against Tudor.
Cauthron said Tudor's demand for $2 million in compensation “stretches the bounds of reasonableness beyond recognition.” The judge noted that Tudor got a job at a community college after she left the university and so he rejected the notion that Tudor will be unemployable for the remainder of her professional career.
Tudor's lawyer, Ezra Young, said Tudor will appeal Cauthron's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Young had argued that a good working relationship between Tudor and Southeastern Oklahoma State University was possible.
“We think the court was wrong,” Young said. “This was a situation where Dr. Tudor had a rare job, a tenure-track job, where you don't lose it no matter what. They tried to strip her of that and a jury agreed.”
The win in November for Tudor represented the first-of-its-kind ruling in a transgender discrimination case that went to full trial. The verdict followed a years-long battle that included intervention by the U.S. Justice Department in 2015—and a later retreat from the case under the Trump administration.
The Justice Department, withdrawing from the case, reached a settlement with the university. The government's settlement agreement required the university to hire an equal opportunity director to oversee policies and to conduct training.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The government's move to settle followed U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to drop Obama-era guidance that said gender identity should be protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The new view clashes with some federal appeals court and with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Tudor began working at Southeastern Oklahoma State University in 2004, and at the time she identified as a man. Tudor later began to present as a woman. The lawsuit argued that the university denied Tudor promotions because of her gender identity, transition and non-conformance with gender stereotypes.
“For me, my case has always been about proving that I earned tenure at Southeastern Oklahoma State University and restoring my professional and personal reputation,” Tudor said in a prepared statement. “I worked hard to earn tenure and want to return to my life's work. Ultimately, I am hopeful that the Tenth Circuit will restore my opportunity to regain the life denied me by violating my civil rights.”
The $2 million Tudor requested in front pay included salary, benefits and contributions she said she would have received once she secured the tenured role. The court suggested rather $60,000 to represent the gap between her termination from the university and attaining her new job at Collin College.
Representatives from the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, which represents the university, didn't immediately respond to request for comment. Lawyers for the university said in court papers they “strongly, and steadfastly, oppose [Tudor's] return to employment” at the school.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute readWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 2Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 3Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
- 42 Carter Arnett Litigators to Join Baker & Hostetler in Dallas
- 5People in the News—Nov. 27, 2024—Flaster Greenberg, Tucker Arensberg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250