Education: Former UVA professor claims sexual orientation discrimination

Where the former university professor plausibly alleged that he was treated differently during a Title IX investigation because of his sexual orientation, the majority of his claims survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Background

Felipe Correa, a former University of Virginia professor, alleges that The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia discriminated against him in a Title IX proceeding in violation of Title IX, Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act and in breach of his employment contract.

Additionally, Correa asserts equal protection claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 against UVA, Malo A. Hutson (Dean of the School of Architecture) and Meredith Smith (UVA’s former Title IX coordinator), in their official and personal capacities. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

VHRA

UVA argues that it is not subject to the Virginia Human Rights Act because the “General Assembly did not waive sovereign immunity under the VHRA.” UVA is correct. This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Equal Protection

Defendants move to dismiss the equal protection claims against UVA and the official capacity claims against Hutson and Smith for lack of jurisdiction because the defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. Correa concedes that he cannot recover money damages from official capacity defendants but argues that the equal protection claim against UVA survives because he seeks prospective injunctive relief in the form of “vacating . . . disciplinary records.”

UVA responds that vacating disciplinary records is retrospective relief and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court disagrees. The existence of these files represent a continuing injury. Accordingly, Correa’s request to expunge his disciplinary records is prospective injunctive relief.

Defendants next argue Correa failed to allege comparators sufficiently similarly situated for the court to infer that he was discriminated against based on his gender and sexual orientation. The court disagrees as to his sexual orientation claim.

Correa alleges that Roe is “a heterosexual male professor and was a department head at the University of Virginia who was accused by a female student of repeated sexual assaults that spanned more than a year[.]” Unlike Correa, Roe was “permitted to retain his faculty position during the course of the Title IX investigation” and was eventually permitted to resign from his position. These facts establish that Roe and Correa held similar positions and faced similar accusations.

At this stage, these similarities are sufficient to raise the inference that Correa received different treatment during the Title IX investigation than Roe because he is gay. UVA’s counterarguments are not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage. However Correa has failed to identify a comparator with respect to his gender discrimination claim, so that claim is dismissed.

Qualified immunity

Hutson and Smith argue that the equal protection claims asserted against them in their individual capacities should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that placing Correa on leave pending the outcome of the Title IX investigation violates Correa’s right to equal protection. I agree.

Title IX

UVA argues that “[Title IX] does not provide any explicit private right of action for employees of educational institutions against their employers.” UVA’s argument contravenes Preston v. Virginia, 941 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1991). While the Preston court did not expressly address whether Title IX claims can proceed alongside Title VII claims, numerous other courts in the Fourth Circuit have permitted such claims to proceed simultaneously.

Title VII

For the same reasons I found that Correa’s allegations about Roe were sufficient to support an equal protection claim, I find that Correa has adequately pled a Title VII claim based on his sexual orientation discrimination. Likewise, for the same reasons I found that Correa’s allegations about Ripple did not support an equal protection gender discrimination claim, I find that Correa failed to plead a Title VII claim based on his gender.

Breach of contract

I disagree with UVA’s contention that the employment contract did not incorporate the policies. In addition to instructing Correa “to become familiar” with the policies it requires him to “comply” with the policies. As such, it places an obligation on Correa which, in my view, this is sufficient for incorporation of the policies into the employment contract.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Correa v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, Case No. 3:24-cv-65, July 23, 2025. WDVA at Charlottesville (Ballou). VLW 025-3-301. 20 pp.