Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Va.: Retired astronomer, stripped of emeritus title after criticizing DEI practices, advances Title VII claim, (Dec 5, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

His email stated that the DEI programs “justify illegal and unethical discrimination by race, sex, and sexual orientation/identity,” and that he was “appalled” by the “expanding and increasingly blatant discriminatory DEI policies.”

An astronomer who was given the title of “astronomer emeritus” after retiring from his longtime position at a research management corporation, but allegedly had the title revoked from the former employer’s board of trustees approximately one week after he sent an email criticizing certain DEI practices, defeated a motion to dismiss his Title VII retaliation claim. Rejecting the company’s contention that, as a retiree, he was not protected by Title VII, a federal district court in Virginia observed that the Supreme Court has held that former employees are entitled to statutory protection. Moreover, he plausibly alleged he suffered a materially adverse action since the immediate removal of his title and accompanying benefits would discourage a “reasonable worker” from raising similar concerns, and a causal connection could be inferred from the close temporal proximity (Condon v. Associated Universities Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00063 (W.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2025)).

Astronomer emeritus. The astronomer worked for Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI), a research management corporation that operates the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), from 1979 until he retired in March 2021. After he retired, AUI’s board of trustees granted him the title of astronomer emeritus, which only the board could revoke. Though the title did not entitle any specific obligations to NRAO, he was required to complete mandatory annual trainings and follow general workplace requirements.

Benefits. The title also did not entitle him to a salary, but AUI provided him with office space, a company email, and his own computer with full IT support. He also claimed he was provided certain financial benefits in the form of funding for his research and travel, as well as payment of his publication charges. He held the title for over a year with no issues.

The DEI letter. On September 14, 2022, he sent a group email to NRAO employees and third parties which stated: “Unfortunately, most of NRAO’s DEI programs have used ‘broaden participation’ to justify illegal and unethical discrimination by race, sex, and sexual orientation/identity … I am appalled by the NRAO’s expanding and increasingly blatant discriminatory DEI policies, and I am further concerned they will be embedded in the new scientific staff manual. I wrote a detailed memo describing and documenting the history of institutional discrimination at the NRAO and can provide a copy on request. Beware, however, that questioning official discrimination at the NRAO may lead to career-ending retaliation.”

Title revoked. AUI’s board of trustees met about a week later (on September 22 or 23) and voted to terminate his emeritus appointment. He learned of the decision in a letter that he received on November 4. The termination, which he claimed was effective immediately and without any stated justification, stripped him of all his rights without any due process.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging AUI revoked his astronomer emeritus title in retaliation for engaging in protected Title VII activity. The district court previously granted AUI’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend based on its finding he failed to sufficiently allege an employer-employee relationship. He filed an amended complaint, which AUI now moved to dismiss.

Protected as a former employee. Rejecting AUI’s contention that the astronomer was not protected by Title VII, the court observed that Supreme Court precedent set forth in its 1996 decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. expressly establishes that former employees may bring Title VII retaliation claims against their former employers. While AUI claimed that Robinson protects former employees only to the extent necessary to protect against retaliation for opposition conduct related to their prior employment, the district court disagreed.

Significantly, the Robinson Court explicitly stated that the antiretaliation provision’s “primary purpose” is “[m]aintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms” and imposed no factual limitations on its holding. Moreover, lower courts have applied Robinson consistently without limiting its holding to the factual context under which it arose. Accordingly, because Title VII protections apply broadly to former employees, the district court held that those protections applied to the astronomer.

Plausible claim. The court also rejected AUI’s contention that the astronomer failed to allege a plausible retaliation claim under Title VII. First, he engaged in protected activity by voicing his opinion about AUI’s allegedly discriminatory hiring practices in his September 14 email. He also alleged facts sufficient to establish an adverse action since the astronomer emeritus position conferred several benefits upon him associated with his title. By removing the tile without any process or ability for him to respond, AUI acted in a manner that would discourage a “reasonable worker” from raising similar concerns regarding discrimination, concluded the court. Finally, the approximately one-week temporal proximity between his email and the board’s termination of his title and associated benefits was sufficiently close to allow an inference of causation.

The case is No. 3:24-CV-00063.

Judge: Moon, N.

Attorneys: Benjamin Aaron Beliles (Beliles & Associates) for James J. Condon. Amanda Weaver (Williams Mullen) for Associated Universities, Inc.

Companies: Associated Universities Inc.

Cases: Retaliation CoverageLiability VirginiaNews