Charlton-Perkins v. University Of Cincinnati
1:20-cv-00179
| S.D. Ohio | Aug 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mark Charlton-Perkins, a U.S. citizen and research associate in the U.K., applied for an Assistant Professor of Cell Biology position at the University of Cincinnati (UC) in 2017.
- The search committee, chaired by Dr. Elke Buschbeck (a professional collaborator and personal friend of Plaintiff), recommended Plaintiff for the position after a contentious, split-decision process.
- Concerns arose among several UC faculty regarding a conflict of interest and possible bias due to Dr. Buschbeck's advocacy for Plaintiff.
- Following an internal investigation, faculty discord, and an unsalvageable search process, UC Dean Dr. Petren cancelled the job search; the position was never refilled, and department hiring priorities shifted the following year.
- Plaintiff sued UC and individual administrators under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause for alleged gender discrimination in not being hired, seeking "instatement" to the position.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of personal liability, Title IX inapplicability, and lack of evidence of pretext for discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity to Equal Protection claims | Ex Parte Young exception applies; seeks relief. | No exception: relief sought is "instatement" not reinstatement, for a canceled job. | Immunity bars claims against officials in official capacity. |
| Qualified immunity (personal capacity Equal Protection claims) | Discriminatory intent shown; rights clearly established. | No discriminatory intent; not a clearly established violation. | Qualified immunity shields Drs. Petren and Uetz. |
| Title IX applicability to non-U.S. resident applicants | Title IX applies because decisions occurred in U.S. | Title IX applies only to persons physically "in the U.S." | Title IX applies here; location of conduct controls. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of gender discrimination/pretext | Gender focus dominated; non-discriminatory reason is pretext. | Legitimate non-discriminatory reason: conflict of interest and faculty discord. | Insufficient evidence of pretext; 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 (genuine dispute and fact-finding at summary judgment)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective relief)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (prospective vs. retrospective relief for immunity)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (scope of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden-shifting in employment discrimination cases)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (proving pretext in discrimination cases)