Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. Wis.: Demotion to ‘shield’ white university director from race-related backlash may be unlawful, (Jun 2, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She claimed the university demoted her because of backlash from faculty, staff, and students who did not want a white person leading the new multicultural student services department.

The University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire will face trial on Title VII claims that it discriminatorily and retaliatorily demoted its former interim director of the university’s newly merged department of multicultural student services (MSS) after facing harsh student and faculty backlash for putting a white person in charge a department whose mission included providing support to non-white students. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the university on her hostile work environment claim, explaining that “no reasonable jury could find the statements about white people in the MSS department objectively hostile or abusive, because they were part of a broader academic discussion about campus diversity” (Hoffman v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, No. 3:23-cv-00853-jdp (W.D. Wis. May 27, 2025)).

In 2019, the employee began working for the university as a student services coordinator in the office that provided support to low-income, first-generation, and other underrepresented students. In 2021, she was promoted to its assistant director. That same year, the university merged that office with the office that provided support to racial minority students and created the MSS department.

Backlash over leadership role. In late January 2022, the university’s vice chancellor of DEI and student affairs asked the employee to serve as interim director of the MSS department. However, her appointment generated backlash from students, who asked the vice chancellor at open houses why she hired a white woman and questioned whether she felt that “white staff can do as effective a job as a person of color, within a space for people of color.” The student senate also released a resolution expressing “concerns over placing white-identifying individuals in positions of interim leadership for major [DEI] offices.” Some faculty and staff also expressed disapproval of the decision. For instance, the student coordinator announced that she agreed with the resolution and told the employee that her white identity was “an issue” for her.

Demotion. That spring, the vice chancellor removed her as interim director and made her the assistant director. However, open-house attendees continued to criticize the appointment of white people to MSS leadership positions. On social media, an alumni group criticized the department as “overwhelmingly white,” and over 100 faculty members signed an open letter expressing concerns. Multiple news organizations came to the employee’s office to report on the criticisms, and non-white faculty and staff allegedly excluded the employee from meetings.

Complaint leads to transfer. In late July, the employee filed a race-discrimination complaint with the affirmative action (AA) office. The next day, the AA director emailed the vice chancellor and HR about transferring her to another department. After she subsequently told the new MSS director that she was experiencing discrimination, the director suggested that she accept a transfer. The next day, the director advised HR and the AA director that she wanted to transfer to the student support services (SSS) department. However, on August 24, she emailed that she did not want to leave the office or her position, emphasizing that, “This situation isn’t an interpersonal conflict, rather this is a conflict of ideology, that some do not find my presence legitimate in the office.” The transfer took effect on September 2, 2022.

Sovereign immunity. At the outset, the court held that the employee’s individual Section 1981 and 1983 claims against the chancellor and the affirmative action coordinator were barred by sovereign immunity. Since the claims stemmed directly from her employment contract with the university and the officials were not parties to her employment contract in their individual capacities, the damages she sought would necessarily be paid by the state.

No HWE. The employee alleged that she experienced a hostile work environment (HWE) due to the “onslaught of racial abuse and hostility” from faculty, staff, students, and alumni who were opposed to her appointment to MSS department leadership. However, the court found that she failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the analysis “requires careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target.”

Diversity discussion not hostile. “Here, the university was in the midst of a broader discussion about racial diversity and how to support non-white students,” reasoned the court. And at the time, that discussion focused on the MSS department due to the recent merger and because its mission included providing support to non-white students. “Viewed in context, no reasonable jury could find the statements about white people in the MSS department objectively hostile or abusive, because they were part of a broader academic discussion about campus diversity,” and “[r]easonable people could hold differing opinions about the role of white people in leadership positions in university offices devoted to the interests of minority students.”

In addition, when faculty members directly questioned her role in the MSS department, “the speakers were expressing an opinion on an issue reasonable people could disagree on, specifically whether non-white students can be served equally effectively by white and non-white staff.” Moreover, “none of the speakers used racial epithets or expressed offensive, demeaning, or dehumanizing views about white people more generally.” Insofar as she claimed her coworkers excluded her from three meetings and that one refused to speak with her, these constituted “relatively isolated instances of non-severe misconduct.”

Race-based demotion. However, the employee advanced her claim that contended the university engaged in race discrimination when it demoted her to assistant director because of the backlash from faculty, staff, and students who did not want a white person leading the department. Though the university argued that the demotion was not an adverse action because the interim director position never formally existed, she did not need to show an official appointment. Rather, under the Muldrow standard she only needed to show “harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Because she lost supervisory responsibilities over student coordinators, she met her burden.

The court also rejected the university’s contention that she could not demonstrate a causal connection since her supervisor did not possess discriminatory animus but rather sought to shield her from the negative reactions of others. While a decisionmaker’s racial animus can help to prove that an adverse action was caused by their race, it is not an element of a discrimination claim, and the employee only needed to show she was demoted “because of” her race. “A well-intended but patronizing effort to shield an employee from racial hostility is enough to show causation,” concluded the court.

Constructive transfer. A reasonable jury could also find that her transfer to the SSS department constituted a discriminatory and/or retaliatory demotion since she reverted to a non-supervisory position and lost the ability to telecommute. Insofar as the university also contended the transfer was voluntary, triable issues existed as to whether the university gave her no choice and in effect forced her to accept the transfer.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-00853-jdp.

Judge: Peterson, J.

Attorneys: Michael Fox (Fox & Fox, S.C.) for Rochelle L. Hoffman. Mary Kathlin Sickel, Wisconsin Department of Justice, for Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

Companies: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation IndividualRights PublicEmployees CoverageLiability WisconsinNews