Trevino v. University of Maryland, College Park, 8:24-cv-03264

Rodrigo Trevino, a Mexican American Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland, alleged race and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation after he criticized equity in department hiring and diversity initiatives, and was ultimately denied tenure.
Trevino engaged in activities and raised complaints concerning discrimination and equity in hiring and treatment of faculty, which he claims led to adverse employment actions, including disparagement, negative tenure recommendations, and a hostile environment.
After filing internal and external complaints (including with the EEOC), Trevino’s tenure process was allegedly impacted by departmental leaders, and he was denied tenure, despite a minority report from some faculty in his favor.
Trevino filed suit under Title VII, Title VI, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The present decision addresses only Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 7 of Trevino’s amended complaint, which alleges First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations under § 1983.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment Retaliation	Trevino suffered retaliation for protected speech on public concerns (equity, diversity)	Trevino’s speech concerned personal employment matters, not public concern	Trevino plausibly alleged retaliation for speech on a public concern; motion denied on this claim.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process	Denial of tenure and process deprived him of a protected property interest	No protected property interest in tenure or process; procedures alone don't create it	No cognizable property interest; motion granted on this claim.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (pleading rules for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state actors subject to § 1983 liability)
Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) (public employee First Amendment retaliation standards)
Campbell v. Galloway, 483 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2007) (defining when speech is a matter of public concern)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (distinguishing speech of public concern vs. personal interest)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interest definition for due process)
Clark v. Whiting, 607 F.2d 634 (4th Cir. 1979) (no property interest in tenure absent entitlement)
Siu v. Johnson, 748 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984) (procedural guidelines do not create property interest)