3:24-cv-00065
W.D. Va.Jul 23, 2025Background
- Felipe Correa, a former tenured professor and department chair at UVA, faced sexual misconduct allegations from two male graduate students leading to Title IX proceedings.
- Correa alleges UVA's investigation was flawed: claims included bias against him as a gay man, consolidation of unrelated complaints, procedural irregularities, and retaliatory actions (including administrative leave and loss of chair position prior to findings).
- Correa was eventually found responsible for policy violations related to sexual harassment and conflict of interest, resulting in termination, but was cleared of some Title IX-specific charges.
- Correa sued UVA, alleging violations of Title IX, Title VII (sex and sexual orientation discrimination), Equal Protection under § 1983, the Virginia Human Rights Act, and breach of his employment contract.
- Defendants (UVA and several administrators) moved to dismiss all claims on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX does it create a right of action for employee claims? | Title IX covers employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions | Title VII is the exclusive remedy; no Title IX claim for employees | Denied dismissal; Title IX claim permitted under Fourth Circuit law |
| Title VII: Discrimination based on gender / sexual orientation | Treated differently than a heterosexual, less qualified woman replaced him | Not similarly situated comparators; insufficient support for discrimination | Gender claim dismissed; sexual orientation claim may proceed |
| Equal Protection: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Disparate treatment vs. heterosexual male (Roe) who also faced Title IX investigation | Claims are barred; not similarly situated; qualified immunity for administrators | Official capacity claims (except monetary relief) may proceed on sexual orientation; individual claims dismissed (qualified immunity) |
| Virginia Human Rights Act | UVA is subject to VHRA; discrimination occurred | Sovereign immunity not waived by statute | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Breach of Contract | University policies were part of contract; UVA breached by not following them | Policies not incorporated, or are non-binding/unilateral | Denied dismissal; policies form binding contract promises |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (sets standard for plausibility at pleading stage)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity requires law to be clearly established)
- Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (establishes that sex discrimination is prohibited under Equal Protection)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pleading standards; all facts taken as true on a motion to dismiss)