Former Penn State writing professor Zack De Piero has filed a lawsuit in opposition to the college, alleging reverse discrimination and retaliation following his opposition to social justice and antiracist initiatives on campus.
Background
De Piero, a 40-year-old professor who identifies as white, claimed that his supervisors subjected him to embarrassment, harassment, and discrimination by varied social justice and antiracism applications. He particularly objected to workshops and coaching periods that required him to acknowledge “white privilege” and establish manifestations of “white supremacy” in tradition and writing.
After lodging an inside criticism with the college, De Piero started to problem the discourse on race throughout an internet coaching session. Subsequently, different individuals within the coaching filed a criticism in opposition to him, accusing him of bullying and harassment. The college’s investigation concluded that no bias or discrimination had been directed at De Piero or equally located people. Nevertheless, it discovered that De Piero had engaged in aggressive and disruptive habits. He obtained a written discover advising that his habits was unacceptable and warning that future related conduct may lead to disciplinary motion. His subsequent efficiency assessment mirrored a lower in two areas as a consequence of his disruptive habits, though he obtained excessive marks for general efficiency. Two months after receiving the assessment and shortly earlier than the brand new college yr started, De Piero resigned, later claiming constructive discharge.
The Swimsuit
The lawsuit, initially filed in June 2023, alleges racial discrimination, a hostile work setting, and retaliation for exercising his First Modification rights, in violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act. The college responded with a movement to dismiss, arguing that participating in uncomfortable discussions about race doesn’t equate to race discrimination.
Ruling
On January 1, 2024, the Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ movement to dismiss. The Court reiterated the requirements for every rely alleged, noting {that a} declare of disparate therapy below Title VII, Part 1981, and the PHRA requires the plaintiff to reveal (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the place; (3) struggling an antagonistic employment motion; and (4) circumstances suggesting intentional discrimination. The Court decided that the warning issued to De Piero was not disciplinary and that the detrimental efficiency ranking didn’t materially alter his job situations, as his contract was renewed and he obtained a increase.
On April 16, 2025, the Court dismissed the rest of the case, granting Penn State’s movement for abstract judgment. The Court rejected De Piero’s argument that institutional bias in opposition to his views on race created a hostile work setting, discovering no proof that his therapy deviated from legit office requirements. The Court concluded that no affordable jury may decide that De Piero was reprimanded or terminated as a consequence of his complaints.
The Authorized Panorama
Given the current ruling by the Supreme Court, which eradicated affirmative motion in school admissions, the Trump Administration’s dismantling of DEI applications, and the present place of the Equal Employment Alternative Fee’s (EEOC) deal with rooting out unlawful DEI initiatives, claims similar to these are anticipated to rise.
