3 employment law court rulings from public federal records (2000–2022)
University of Akron appears in 3 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the education sector, where Title IX intersects with Title VII and tenure-revocation cases raise heightened procedural protections. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.
The cases primarily involve Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Retaliation. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Wrongful Termination and Retaliation.
Rulings span Ohio. Ohio is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Ohio rulings.
Age discrimination disability discrimination. Plaintiff filed an action alleging age discrimination and disability discrimination. Defendant formerly employed plaintiff as a tenured professor. Plaintiff is a 68-year-old-man. During the spring of 2020, plaintiff went on medical leave to undergo cardiac surgery. In the summer of 2020, defendant notified plaintiff that he was one of 96 full-time faculty members whose employment was terminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Defendant motioned for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that the RIF was discriminatory. In the context of an RIF, plaintiffs must proffer direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence that establishes age was a factor in their termination. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisors' inquiries into whether he might soon retire and the fact that only 15% of terminated employees were under the age of 40 constituted evidence of defendant's discriminatory intent. The court found that defendant's university-wide RIF was conducted out of economic necessity, which constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for plaintiff's termination. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in defendant's favor.
Browse rulings involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.