Federal Court Dismisses Discrimination and Retaliation Suit Against Purdue University

By Emilie Shumway
Published October 9, 2026

In a significant legal development for higher education labor relations, a federal judge ruled on September 17, 2026, that Purdue University acted within its rights when it sanctioned a former chief diversity officer. The ruling effectively halted a high-profile discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, underscoring the stringent evidentiary burdens plaintiffs face when alleging racial bias in workplace disciplinary actions.

The court’s decision reinforces the importance of the “similarly situated” standard in Title VII litigation, confirming that even in cases involving high-ranking executives, universities maintain the authority to impose disciplinary measures when they can demonstrate legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications.

Judge tosses former Purdue diversity chief’s race bias and retaliation claims

The Core Facts: A Breakdown of the Dispute

The lawsuit, Hammonds v. Purdue University, centered on the actions of a former Black chief diversity officer (CDO) who alleged that the university subjected him to discriminatory sanctions and subsequent retaliation. The plaintiff argued that his treatment was racially motivated and that the university’s disciplinary response to his management of an executive assistant was disproportionately harsh compared to his peers.

However, the presiding judge found that the university successfully articulated clear, non-discriminatory reasons for the sanctions. The primary basis for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff was his handling of an executive assistant’s employment conditions. Specifically, the plaintiff was sanctioned for revoking the assistant’s pre-existing remote work privileges—a move the court viewed as retaliatory against the assistant for her protected leave requests and time off. Furthermore, the plaintiff was cited for consistently stalling in the approval or denial of the assistant’s leave requests, creating an environment that the university deemed unacceptable for a senior-level executive.

Chronology of the Legal Conflict

The trajectory of the dispute followed a series of internal administrative reviews before escalating to federal court:

The Initial Conflict: The plaintiff’s executive assistant raised concerns regarding the denial of remote work and the mishandling of her leave requests. Internal reviews suggested that the plaintiff’s actions were inconsistent with university policy.
Imposition of Sanctions: Purdue University initiated a disciplinary review, resulting in a mandate for the plaintiff to undergo training, a one-year freeze on pay increases, temporary alterations to his job responsibilities, and a formal letter of reprimand.
The Appeal and Escalation: Following an appeal from the executive assistant, the university increased the severity of the sanctions. The plaintiff then filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the increased sanctions were a retaliatory measure for his protected activity.
Litigation: The plaintiff subsequently sued Purdue, claiming race-based discrimination and retaliation. He attempted to use three other university employees as "comparators" to demonstrate disparate treatment.
The Ruling: On September 17, 2026, the court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

Supporting Data: Why the Comparators Failed

A critical component of the court’s decision was its rejection of the plaintiff’s attempts to compare his situation to that of other employees at the university. To succeed in a Title VII discrimination claim, a plaintiff must typically show that they were treated less favorably than a “similarly situated” individual outside of their protected class.

The plaintiff presented three comparators: two White employees and one Asian employee. The court systematically dismantled the argument that these individuals were comparable:

The Faculty Member (White): The plaintiff argued that this individual received a more lenient outcome for harassment allegations. The court noted that the faculty member was suspended without pay for two years—a sanction significantly more severe than the training and pay freeze imposed on the plaintiff. Furthermore, the roles were fundamentally different: the faculty member operated under different administrative structures than the cabinet-level senior executive position held by the plaintiff.
The Asian Employee: This individual was accused of repeated misconduct. However, the university’s investigation determined that the allegations did not rise to the level of harassment. The court concluded that because the nature of the misconduct was qualitatively different and less severe than the behaviors the plaintiff was accused of, the two were not similarly situated.
The Final Comparator: This individual was accused of serious misconduct involving inappropriate exposure. The complaint was dismissed because it fell outside the university’s strict 120-day reporting window. The court noted that this was a procedural dismissal based on timing, not a lack of substantive discipline, and therefore did not serve as evidence of bias in the plaintiff’s case.

The court explicitly stated, “Unfair treatment and retaliation for legally protected activity are not one and the same.” This distinction is vital; even if an employee feels they were treated unfairly, they must prove the action was rooted in illegal discrimination, not merely a disagreement over administrative or managerial style.

Official Responses and University Stance

Throughout the proceedings, Purdue University maintained that its disciplinary actions were consistent with its internal policies and were necessitated by the plaintiff’s conduct. The university’s defense hinged on the argument that the sanctions were a direct response to the plaintiff’s specific actions regarding his subordinate.

By following standard appeal procedures—which resulted in the strengthening of sanctions after the assistant challenged the initial outcome—the university successfully demonstrated that its process was contextually legitimate. The court found no evidence that the university’s motives were race-based, noting that the university’s decisions were grounded in documented administrative necessity rather than discriminatory animus.

Regarding the retaliation claim, the court was equally dismissive. The plaintiff argued that the sanctions were increased specifically because he filed an EEOC charge. However, the court identified significant timing discrepancies and a lack of evidence that decision-makers were aware of or motivated by the EEOC filing when they arrived at their disciplinary conclusions.

Broader Implications for Higher Education

The Hammonds decision arrives at a time of shifting legal standards regarding Title VII and reverse discrimination. In June 2026, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the nuance of “similarly situated” comparators in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. While some argued that Ames might lower the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs claiming bias, the Hammonds ruling clarifies that the requirement to show "similarly situated" treatment remains a robust and necessary element of a successful discrimination claim.

Key Takeaways for Human Resources and Legal Teams:

Documentary Integrity: The case underscores the importance of maintaining detailed, time-stamped records for all disciplinary actions. Purdue’s adherence to its 120-day reporting policy was instrumental in its defense.
Role Differentiation: Employers must be aware that "similar" behavior does not always equal "similarly situated." The court’s willingness to distinguish between a cabinet-level executive and a faculty member provides a blueprint for how institutions can defend differential treatment based on job function and scope of responsibility.
The "Unfair vs. Illegal" Distinction: The court’s reminder that unfair treatment does not automatically constitute a violation of Title VII is a critical takeaway for HR departments. Establishing that an action is non-discriminatory—even if it is harsh or arguably "unfair"—remains the gold standard for institutional defense.
Retaliation Thresholds: The ruling highlights that timing is not enough to prove retaliation. Courts require a clear nexus between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Without evidence of "but-for" causation, retaliation claims are likely to fail.

As universities continue to navigate the complexities of diversity leadership and administrative accountability, the Hammonds decision serves as a reminder that the judiciary continues to prioritize evidence-based, objective comparisons over subjective feelings of bias. For institutions, the ruling offers a degree of protection, provided they follow consistent, transparent, and policy-driven disciplinary procedures.