Charlton-Perkins v. University Of Cincinnati
1:20-cv-00179
| S.D. Ohio | Aug 18, 2025Background
- Mark Charlton-Perkins, a U.S. citizen then living in the UK, sued the University of Cincinnati (UC) and two administrators, alleging gender discrimination after not being hired for an Assistant Professor position in Cell Biology that was later canceled.
- Plaintiff brought claims under Title IX (against UC for gender discrimination in hiring) and Section 1983 for Equal Protection (against Drs. Petren and Uetz).
- The job search process included a faculty search committee, where Plaintiff was advanced as a top candidate but concerns were raised about a conflict of interest due to a close professional and personal relationship between Plaintiff and the search committee chair.
- After internal discord and faculty concerns about the process, the Dean ultimately canceled the search, and the position was never reposted, allegedly due to shifting departmental needs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity, non-applicability of Title IX, and lack of pretext for discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment Immunity on 1983 Claim | Immunity does not apply under Ex Parte Young exception | Claim seeks creation of a new position, not prospective relief | Eleventh Amendment bars claim |
| Qualified Immunity | Rights clearly established; gender discrimination is unlawful | No clearly established right was violated or intent shown | Qualified immunity applies |
| Applicability of Title IX | Title IX should apply as Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen affected | Title IX applies only to persons physically in the U.S. at the time | Title IX applies in this case |
| Pretext for Discrimination (Merits of Claims) | Gender drove the decision to cancel the search and not hire | Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: conflict of interest, discord | No pretext proven; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (standard for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment factual disputes rules)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective relief)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (showing of pretext and discrimination required)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Title VII burden-shifting procedure explained)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX purposes outlined)