Plaintiff Brendon Fox sued defendant Fort Hays State University in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of race discrimination under Title VII, § 1983, and § 1981. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Brendon Fox, a Black faculty member, began working for Fort Hays State University’s partnership program in China in 2015. In 2017, he took on additional responsibilities as a de facto lead faculty member. Fox alleged that working in China involved many hardships, limited opportunities, and lower pay compared to faculty on the main campus in Hays, Kansas.
In November 2021, Fox applied for an Assistant Professor of Leadership Studies position on the main campus. Despite considering himself a “perfect fit” for the role, he was not interviewed. The university ultimately hired a White male from out of state for the position. Fox claimed he was equally qualified, if not more so, than the selected candidate.
Fox alleged a pattern of discrimination in the university’s hiring practices, stating that open positions on the main campus were given to Caucasian faculty from China rather than individuals of color. He cited knowledge of other faculty members of color who had unsuccessfully applied for lateral positions on the main campus and claimed that a higher percentage of individuals of color were “relegated” to working overseas.
Legal Analysis
Scope of Claims
The court first addressed the scope of Fox’s claims. While Fox mentioned a general practice of discrimination and a specific instance of discrimination regarding the November 2021 position, the court interpreted the complaint as asserting one claim: failure to promote in violation of Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court noted that individuals cannot bring “pattern-or-practice” claims and that Fox’s allegations about general discrimination did not independently state a claim.
Plausibility of Failure to Promote Claim
The court then analyzed whether Fox had pleaded a plausible discrimination claim for failure to promote. It outlined the elements required for such a claim: (1) the plaintiff is in a protected class; (2) he applied for an available promotion and was qualified for it; and (3) the defendant rejected his application under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court found that Fox had met these criteria at the pleading stage. As a Black individual, he was in a protected class. He had applied for the position on the main campus, which could be considered a promotion given the disadvantages of working in China. Fox’s teaching background suggested he was qualified for the position, and he was ultimately rejected.
While acknowledging that many of Fox’s allegations were general and conclusory, the court determined that enough factual content was present to state a plausible claim. The court noted that Fox would need to provide more specific evidence to survive a summary judgment motion after discovery, including demonstrating his qualifications and presenting facts justifying an inference of discrimination.
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, allowing Fox’s narrow discrimination claim for failure to promote in November 2021-February 2022 to proceed under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983.
Schrag on Law 