She alleged unequal pay and retaliation but never went through the right process first
A University of Wyoming worker's sex discrimination case collapsed before a single allegation was tested.
The Wyoming Supreme Court on November 3, 2026, affirmed the dismissal of every claim the marketing and communications specialist had brought against the university - not because the court examined her allegations, but because she took the wrong path to get them heard.
The worker's amended complaint painted a pointed picture. She alleged a male colleague earned more for equivalent work and received preferential treatment. Her supervisor, she claimed, expressed reluctance to promote women in business, questioned why a Women in Business Club was featured in a university video, and directed her not to promote events organized around women in business. She also alleged she was reprimanded for highlighting a female speaker in social media posts.
When she raised concerns about the treatment, the university retaliated, the complaint alleged - issuing a warning letter that claimed performance deficiencies and denying her the chance to respond.
Then came the termination.
After she was let go, the complaint alleged the university gave false information to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services - claiming she had left work early on one day - which delayed her unemployment benefits.
She filed suit pro se in district court in December 2024. The case briefly landed in federal court after the university argued it raised questions under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But the worker filed an amended complaint dropping the federal claims and sticking to state law. The federal court sent it back.
Back in state court, the university moved to dismiss. Before that motion was decided, the worker sought to recuse the presiding judge. The case was reassigned. The new judge granted the university's motion and dismissed all claims without prejudice in October 2025.
The worker fought it - filing a motion to strike, then a motion to reconsider. Both were denied. She appealed.
The Supreme Court worked through her claims one by one.
On fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court held the university was shielded by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The university is a governmental entity created by the state constitution, and neither of those claims falls within the Act's narrow exceptions to immunity. The same applied to her wrongful termination claim, to the extent she was seeking money damages.
The Act does not, however, block claims seeking injunctive relief - things like reinstatement or compelled workplace changes. But that path closed for a different reason.
Under Wyoming law, a wrongful termination claim based on public policy only survives where no other legal remedy already covers the conduct. Here, the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Act covers exactly what the worker alleged - discrimination in pay, terms, and conditions of employment based on sex. Because that statute already provides a remedy, the common-law claim was unnecessary.
Her discrimination and hostile work environment claims ran into the same problem from a different angle. The Fair Employment Practices Act requires workers to go through an administrative process first - file a complaint with the Department of Workforce Services, go through investigation and conciliation, and if needed, proceed to a fair hearing. Only then can a party seek court review by filing a petition. The worker skipped all of that and filed a standard civil lawsuit instead. The court held the district court was right to decline jurisdiction.
The court also declined to address her equal pay claim under Wyoming's equal pay statute because she did not raise it on appeal - meaning the lower court's ruling on that issue stands.
One detail worth noting: the worker has a separate federal case against the university under Title VII. The federal court denied the university's motion to dismiss those claims in November 2025. So while the state case is over, the underlying dispute may not be.
For HR teams at public institutions, the case is a sharp reminder that governmental immunity and mandatory administrative steps are not just procedural details - they can end a case before the facts are ever heard.
The Wyoming Supreme Court issued its decision on November 3, 2026, affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims. No court has ruled on the merits of the discrimination allegations.
