Former Penn State writing professor Zack De Piero has filed a lawsuit against the university, alleging reverse discrimination and retaliation following his opposition to social justice and antiracist initiatives on campus.

Background

De Piero, a 40-year-old professor who identifies as white, claimed that his supervisors subjected him to embarrassment, harassment, and discrimination through various social justice and antiracism programs. He specifically objected to workshops and training sessions that required him to acknowledge “white privilege” and identify manifestations of “white supremacy” in culture and writing.

After lodging an internal complaint with the university, De Piero began to challenge the discourse on race during an online training session. Subsequently, other participants in the training filed a complaint against him, accusing him of bullying and harassment. The university’s investigation concluded that no bias or discrimination had been directed at De Piero or similarly situated individuals. However, it found that De Piero had engaged in aggressive and disruptive behavior. He received a written notice advising that his behavior was unacceptable and warning that future similar conduct could result in disciplinary action. His subsequent performance review reflected a decrease in two areas due to his disruptive behavior, although he received high marks for overall performance. Two months after receiving the review and shortly before the new school year began, De Piero resigned, later claiming constructive discharge.

The Suit

The lawsuit, initially filed in June 2023, alleges racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, in violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act. The university responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that engaging in uncomfortable discussions about race does not equate to race discrimination.

Ruling

On January 1, 2024, the Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court reiterated the standards for each count alleged, noting that a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII, Section 1981, and the PHRA requires the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position; (3) suffering an adverse employment action; and (4) circumstances suggesting intentional discrimination. The Court determined that the warning issued to De Piero was not disciplinary and that the negative performance rating did not materially alter his job conditions, as his contract was renewed and he received a raise.

On April 16, 2025, the Court dismissed the remainder of the case, granting Penn State’s motion for summary judgment. The Court rejected De Piero’s argument that institutional bias against his views on race created a hostile work environment, finding no evidence that his treatment deviated from legitimate workplace standards. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury could determine that De Piero was reprimanded or terminated due to his complaints.

The Legal Landscape

Given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which eliminated affirmative action in college admissions, the Trump Administration’s dismantling of DEI programs, and the current position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) focus on rooting out illegal DEI initiatives, claims such as these are expected to rise.