Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—D. Colo.: Refusal to investigate harassment complaint supports Title VII discrimination claim, (Feb 13, 2026)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Allegations of weekly unwanted romantic advances pled harassment that was sufficiently pervasive to sustain hostile work environment claim.

A campus safety employee who alleges he was forced to endure weekly unwanted romantic advances from a female coworker, as well as her gender-based comments, and that his employer, a university campus safety department, failed to investigate, telling him the young, female coworker would be believed over him, sufficiently alleged Title VII discrimination and hostile work environment claims, a federal district court in Colorado ruled. Holding that the failure to investigate for a discriminatory reason can constitute an adverse employment action, and that weekly unwanted advances and comments are sufficiently pervasive, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss Revan’s Title VII discrimination and hostile work environment claims (Revan v. University of Denver Department of Campus Safety, No. 25-cv-00528-NYW-CYC (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2026)).

The employee, a male of “Native American, Israeli, and Jewish descent,” was hired by the employer in April 2022, and promoted to Corporal in September 2022. Shortly after his promotion he witnessed an incident he perceived as harassment of a female coworker by a male. He reported the incident to the Sergeant who was his supervisor, who responded, “I wish you hadn’t told me that because now I have to tell the Captain.” The Captain subsequently told the employee the matter would be handled “internally” and became aggressive when the employee asked about reporting the incident to the campus Title VII officer, threatening to fire him if he reported it.

Told he would not be believed. He frequently worked with a female officer, who he alleges made comments to him on a “weekly basis” about his identity, calling him an “old white man” who could “never understand her.” He also alleges she made weekly unwanted sexual advances toward him. When he asked her to stop harassing him, she responded that as one of the only females in the department, she would be believed over him. The employee told his Sergeant about the coworker’s behavior, but the Sergeant said he would not investigate the employee’s claims, because the coworker was young and female and the command staff would not believe the employee.

Fired. In December 2022, the employee responded to a report of a bike theft, and ultimately pepper sprayed the suspect, leading to accusations of using excessive force. The employee subsequently was terminated for his handling of that incident. He appealed the termination, and his appeal was denied. He does not specify in his complaint who made the decision to uphold the termination, but claims the Sergeant and Captain provided information to the decision-makers.

The employee brought six claims against the employer: (1) gender and race discrimination under Title VII; (2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) discrimination based on hostile work environment under Title VII; and (4) three related claims under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). The employer moved to dismiss all claims except for the Title VII retaliation claim and noted that the employee had agreed to the dismissal of the CADA claims. The court thus granted dismissal of the CADA claims without prejudice and then addressed the gender/race discrimination and hostile work environment claims.

Gender/race discrimination. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to one of the employee’s theories—that the refusal to investigate his claim of harassment by the female coworker was a discriminatory act—but held the employee could not use two other alleged adverse acts (the threat of termination and the termination itself) to support his discrimination claim.

Refusal to investigate. As for the surviving adverse action—the Sergeant’s refusal to investigate the employee’s claim of harassment by his female coworker—the court considered whether the refusal to investigate constitutes an adverse action. The Sergeant had told the employee he would not investigate because the coworker is “young and a woman” and the command staff would not believe the male employee, a statement asserting gender as a reason for the refusal.

The parties focused on a Tenth Circuit case, Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 701 F.3d 620, 640 (10th Cir. 2012), in which the appellate court held in the context of a retaliation claim that the failure to investigate is not itself an adverse action unless it leads to “demonstrable harm.” But as the court noted, Daniels has been abrogated by the Supreme Court’s Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346, 354 (2024), in which the Supreme Court held that so long as an action taken injures the employee as to the terms or conditions of employment, a demonstrable harm has been suffered sufficient to support a discrimination claim. Other circuits have held that the failure to investigate a complaint, based on discriminatory reasons, can constitute an adverse action.

Taking these precedents together, the court held that the Sergeant’s failure to investigate the employee’s claim based on a discriminatory reason harmed the employee sufficient to support his discrimination claim. The court noted that the failure to investigate subjected the employee to further harassment by the coworker, and being subjected to that harassment altered a term or condition of employment for the employee.

Threat insufficient. The employee was not successful in showing that the second alleged adverse action against him, the threat of termination by the Captain if the employee reported an incident to the Title VII officer, supported an actionable claim. A threat generally only becomes an adverse action when it is carried out, and the employee had not alleged how the employee’s subsequent termination was connected to the threat, or that the circumstances surrounding the threat could give rise to discrimination.

Finally, the court found that the employee’s termination failed as an adverse action because the employee did not sufficiently allege comparator employees or identify the decision-makers such that they could be tied to discriminatory motivation. The complaint only contained general allegations that the Captain and Sergeant had provided information to the decision-makers, but nothing to suggest that the decision-makers had adopted any discriminatory animus those officers may have had.

Hostile work environment. There was no dispute that the female coworker’s alleged harassment was based on a protected classification and subjectively offensive, so the court’s analysis focused on whether they were either severe or pervasive. Finding that the frequency of the coworker’s campaign of unwanted overtures and comments that the employee was “old and white” was enough to find the harassment pervasive, even if not “severe,” the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim as well.

The case is No. 25-cv-00528-NYW-CYC.

Judges: Wang, N.

Attorneys: Brandon M. Selinsky (Whitcomb Selinsky) for Jecht Revan. Michael Brent Case (Semple Farrington Everall & Case) for University of Denver Department of Campus Safety.

Companies: University of Denver Department of Campus Safety

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment Retaliation Discharge ColoradoNews