Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—W.D. Okla.: Dance professor can pursue sex bias claim over denied promotion, (Aug 26, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Derogatory remarks about straight male dancers and allegations undermining the university’s stated reasons for the promotion denial were enough to support a Title VII discrimination claim.

A tenured University of Oklahoma professor can pursue a sex discrimination claim over the denial of his promotion after linking derogatory remarks about heterosexual male dancers to an administrator who allegedly influenced the promotion decision. His allegations that his dossier contained more peer-reviewed work than any other faculty member in the School of Dance further supported an inference that the stated reasons for denying the promotion were pretextual. Most of the professor’s remaining claims failed, however, including those for retaliation, hostile work environment, FMLA interference, and Title IX violations. A First Amendment claim seeking prospective relief against two university administrators also survived (Hartel v. Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma, No. 5:25-cv-00404-G (W.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2026)).

Promotion denial. The professor has worked for the University of Oklahoma as a tenured associate professor in the School of Dance for more than 22 years. In 2024, he applied for promotion to full professor. The university denied the promotion based on asserted deficiencies in his dossier, including insufficient peer-reviewed work and inadequacies in his creative statement.

The professor maintained that those explanations were pretextual. He asserted that his dossier contained more peer-reviewed work than any other School of Dance faculty member and that his creative statement satisfied the university’s promotion criteria. He also claimed to possess an audio recording in which the then-director of the School of Dance, who later became dean of the College of Fine Arts, described straight male dancers as “disgusting” because they “go around and sleep with all the girls in the company.” He alleged that her attitude toward his sex and sexual orientation influenced the promotion decision.

The professor also attributed the promotion denial and other adverse treatment to his earlier support of a male student who reported sexual harassment by another School of Dance faculty member. He presented evidence concerning the reported misconduct and asserted that the school administrator protected the accused faculty member, whom she regarded as a favored protege. The faculty member was ultimately dismissed. The professor claimed that his advocacy prompted retaliation, including the promotion denial, investigations of his conduct, lost leadership opportunities, negative evaluations, restricted access to university resources, and scrutiny of his medical leave.

Sex discrimination. The professor sufficiently connected the promotion denial to discriminatory bias to proceed against the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents under Title VII. Although he is a member of a majority group, Title VII protects employees against discrimination without imposing a heightened standard based on membership in a minority or majority group. The university did not dispute that the professor belonged to a protected class or that he applied for a position for which he was qualified. The question was whether the circumstances supported an inference of unlawful discrimination.

The professor adequately pleaded that inference. He asserted that the administrator had authority and influence over the promotion decision and had made derogatory remarks reflecting bias against heterosexual men. He also challenged the university’s explanation for denying the promotion by asserting that his dossier contained more peer-reviewed work than any other faculty member in the School of Dance. Taken together, those allegations plausibly supported a Title VII sex discrimination claim.

His related Title VII retaliation claim lacked the same factual connection. The professor failed to link his advocacy for the student to the actions he characterized as retaliatory. He supplied no dates showing that any challenged action closely followed his advocacy and alleged only that the events occurred sometime afterward. He also failed to identify who participated in particular actions or describe circumstances linking the investigations, promotion denial, or lost leadership opportunities to his protected activity.

The hostile work environment claim failed as well. The complaint identified a single discriminatory comment tied to the professor’s sex, which was insufficient by itself to establish severe or pervasive harassment. The remaining challenged conduct lacked factual allegations connecting it to gender bias or protected activity.

Other federal claims. The professor’s FMLA claim also was dismissed. He alleged that the university conducted a bad-faith investigation of medical leave he took following a 2023 car accident and improperly disclosed protected health information. But he did not claim that he was denied leave, prevented from taking the full amount available to him, or denied reinstatement. He remained employed as a tenured associate professor after returning from leave. Without any allegation that the university interfered with his ability to take or return from leave, he failed to state an FMLA interference claim.

The professor fared better on part of his First Amendment claim. He alleged that university administrators continued to retaliate against him for speaking about sexual harassment and discrimination, including by denying him work opportunities that affected his professional advancement. Because he remained employed and sought prospective relief from those asserted ongoing violations, Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar his official-capacity claim for injunctive relief against the university provost and College of Fine Arts dean.

However, the individual-capacity claim failed. The complaint did not explain the form or recipient of the professor’s asserted protected speech or provide facts showing how that speech motivated either administrator to retaliate against him. It also failed to connect the provost to the protected speech.

Title IX claims. The professor could not pursue his discrimination and retaliation claims under Title IX. Although he described a culture of discrimination and pointed to the derogatory remark, investigations, promotion denial, lost leadership opportunities, and restricted access to university resources, the asserted conduct did not amount to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment sufficient to deny him equal access to university opportunities. A few isolated incidents could not satisfy that standard.

The Title IX retaliation claim suffered from the same lack of a causal connection as his other retaliation claims. The professor did not provide a timeline linking his advocacy to the challenged employment actions. He did not allege that the provost knew of his protected activity, and although he asserted that the dean was aware of it, he failed to connect her to the adverse actions.

His Oklahoma privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were dismissed as well. The professor sufficiently alleged malicious or bad faith conduct to avoid dismissal for failure to provide the pre-suit notice otherwise required for governmental tort claims. However, he did not identify what medical information was accessed, how or when it was obtained, or to whom it was disclosed. He similarly offered no factual detail about the asserted malicious investigations or the severe emotional distress he claimed resulted.

The case is No. CIV-25-404-G.

Judge: Goodwin, C.

Attorneys: Alexey V. Tarasov (Tarasov Law) for Austin Hartel. M. Daniel Weitman, University of Oklahoma Office of Legal Counsel, for Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma.

Companies: Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination EmployeeLeave IndividualRights Retaliation TortClaims OklahomaNews