Black Gay DEI Officer’s Title VII Suit Against University of Toledo Survives Motion to Dismiss Challenging Constructive Discharge and Timeliness

By: Scott D. Wilson

Plaintiff, Gross, a physician assistant, faculty member, and DEI Officer, worked at the University of Toledo from October 1, 2021 to June 30, 2024. He alleged that coworkers prevented him from performing his DEI duties because he is African American and/or because he is gay, referring to him as “divisive” and “immature.” He claimed he complained to the University, but no corrective action was taken.

In January 2024, Gross received a letter stating that his contract would end June 30, 2024, unless the Department Chair rescinded the termination request. Gross alleged the decision was not final because he was told it could change if he “modified his behavior.” On March 4, 2024, he resigned, asserting constructive discharge.

Gross filed an EEOC charge on December 23, 2024, and received a right-to-sue letter on May 30, 2025. He brought race, sex, and retaliation claims under Title VII.

The University challenged the lawsuit on two grounds: (1) untimely EEOC filing; and (2) lack of an adverse employment action because Gross voluntarily resigned.

Regarding untimeliness, the University argued the 300-day filing period began in January 2024 when Gross received the nonrenewal letter. Gross argued the decision was not final and the clock began with his March 4, 2024 resignation.

The court held that at the pleading stage, Gross plausibly alleged the January letter was not final, as the decision depended on whether he modified his behavior—distinguishing the case from Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980), in which the decision was final and merely subject to appeal. Therefore, the EEOC charge could be timely.

Regarding constructive discharge, the University argued Gross resigned voluntarily.
The court found Gross plausibly alleged constructive discharge based on his claims that:

1. he was blocked from performing DEI duties,
2. coworkers made discriminatory remarks,
3. his complaints were ignored,
4. he lost professional opportunities,
5. the behavior-modification discussions were demeaning, and
6. he resigned because of discriminatory working conditions.

These allegations, taken together, were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to state a plausible constructive discharge claim.

The court denied the University’s motion to dismiss. Gross’s Title VII race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims will proceed.

The case is Aarion Gross v. University of Toledo, Case No. 3:25-cv-1162 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2026), 2026 WL 237444.