District Court Dismisses Amy Wax’s Discrimination Suit Against the University of Pennsylvania

In 2022, the University of Pennsylvania disciplined Professor Amy Wax (right), after a string of comments dating back to at least 2017 that denigrated racial minorities. A faculty Hearing Board was convened and, after Professor Wax’s motion to disqualify each member of the Board was denied, held a three-day hearing on the allegations against Professor Wax. The Board concluded that Professor Wax had engaged in “flagrant unprofessional conduct.” The Board recommended a one-year suspension at half pay, loss of the named chair, loss of summer pay in perpetuity, and a public reprimand. The University’s President accepted the Board’s recommendations in Fall 2023. After further fruitless appeals and unsuccessful settlement negotiations, the sanctions against Professor Wax were due to go into effect in July 2025.

Professor Wax brought suit alleging race discrimination under Title VI, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as breach of contract and false light invasion of privacy. On August 28th, in Wax v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania dismissed her claims.

Professor Wax proffered two theories in support of her discrimination claims. First, she alleged that she was discriminated against because she was disciplined for comments critical of certain races while others get away with criticizing other races with impunity. Specifically, Professor Wax claimed that anti-Jewish speech is not punished, while Whites who criticize other races are punished. As the Court explained, this is not the stuff of a discrimination claim under the relevant statutes. It is not enough to claim that you were discriminated against because of something that you said that related to race; you have to allege discrimination based on membership in a protected class. The first theory does not make any such allegation and so the relevant statutes do not apply.

Second, Professor Wax alleged that she was discriminated against as a White Jewish woman. However, the Court found no factual allegations to support that claim. Her complaint made clear that Professor Wax was disciplined based on the content of her speech, not for her White, Jewish status. Professor Wax tried to prove discrimination by identifying seven other University of Pennsylvania employees (the comparators) who were not disciplined despite speech that Professor Wax identified as anti-Semitic. The Court disagreed. Statements in support of the Palestinian people or critical of the government of Israel were not anti-Semitic. Moreover, Professor Wax could only identify up to two statements per comparator and none of the statements related to the university community. According to the Court, unlike Professor Wax, none of the alleged comparators had a history of making denigrating or derogatory comments about minorities.

In short, the Court rejected Professor Wax’s claims because her allegations were wholly conclusory. Her subjective beliefs were no substitute for facts.  Her federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Her pendent state claims, including her breach of contract claim, were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Once the federal issues were dismissed, there was no basis on which the Court could continue to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims.