Throupe v. University of Denver
988 F.3d 1243
| 10th Cir. | 2021Background
- Ronald Throupe, tenured real-estate professor at the University of Denver (Burns School), had a long personal and professional relationship with Mao Xue, a former student who later returned as a graduate assistant and student.
- Colleagues and administrators learned of the relationship (including Throupe calling Xue his "significant other" and asking her to call him "step-dad"); rumors circulated that they were romantically involved.
- Administrators reported concerns to Title IX; Throupe was interviewed and later received a written warning prohibiting professor–student interactions with Xue and cautioning that further contact could lead to discipline.
- Throupe alleges subsequent adverse treatment by department chair Barbara Jackson (unfavorable teaching schedules, yelling) and claims this treatment was motivated by his sex as part of a campaign to push him out.
- He sued under Title IX (sex discrimination) and state tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no prima facie sex-discrimination claim.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: Throupe failed to raise a triable issue that defendants acted because of his sex, forfeited a stereotyping theory on appeal, and the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile-work-environment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Throupe established a Title IX hostile-work-environment claim (sex-based motive) | Rumors, Title IX report/interview, written warning, bad schedules, and yelling were motivated by sex (or sex stereotyping) | Conduct was sex-neutral: responses to concerns about a professor–student relationship and departmental politics, not because Throupe is male | No triable issue that actions were motivated by sex; hostile-environment claim fails |
| Whether defendants engaged in disparate treatment (adverse action because of sex) | Unfavorable scheduling and other actions show disparate treatment compared to colleagues | Scheduling decisions were part of Jackson's effort to restructure department and affected others; no similarly situated female shown | No inference of sex discrimination; disparate-treatment claim fails |
| Whether Throupe preserved a sex‑stereotyping theory | On appeal, argues defendants targeted him based on stereotypes about male professors with female students | Defendants contend stereotyping theory was not raised below and is forfeited | Court finds stereotyping theory forfeited; alternatively rejects it on the merits for lack of supporting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment when plaintiff lacks evidence on an essential element)
- Nat. R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 531 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment is composed of a series of separate acts)
- Sanderson v. Wyo. Highway Patrol, 976 F.3d 1164 (summary-judgment/genuine-issue standard in the Tenth Circuit)
- Morris v. City of Colo. Springs, 666 F.3d 654 (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (recognizing sex‑stereotyping as evidence of sex discrimination)
- EEOC v. PVNF, LLC, 487 F.3d 790 (elements required to infer disparate treatment)