The only man in his department says the same rules never applied to his female coworkers
A male administrative coordinator says a Florida university treated him worse than female coworkers because he is a man, then retaliated when he complained.
The employee has worked at Nova Southeastern University's Lifelong Learning Institute since February 2021. He sued the university in federal court on September 5, 2026, with claims of sex discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, he is the only man in his role, and the managers he faults - along with the coworkers treated differently - are all women. His performance reviews, the filing notes, rated him “Proficient” and later “Highly Effective.”
The pattern he describes began in October 2024, when, according to the complaint, a library director tried to add duties to his job without a pay increase or formal restructuring. When he asked that the extra work be documented and paid, the filing says, the director dropped the plan. He identifies that moment as the point he became a target.
What came next, the complaint alleges, was a run of unequal treatment. In March 2025, he says, a business manager refused to pay him the standard $200 fee for an off-site lecture, calling it ineligible “overload pay,” even though he had received overload pay earlier in his tenure. Months later, the filing alleges, the same manager “mishandled approximately $20,000 in satellite program checks, which were returned after being rejected as stale-dated” and faced no discipline. He, by contrast, drew a formal warning over a disputed conversation.
The complaint says a director required his office door to stay open during business hours while female colleagues kept theirs closed without consequence. His supervisor issued a verbal warning he calls “manufactured,” which cautioned that further issues “may result in further corrective action, up to and including termination.” He requested a health-related accommodation for the door rule, and the filing says the university agreed to provide signage and noise-cancelling headphones.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, his supervisor fixed his hours and ended his remote-work flexibility, noting internally that the change “ended the work from home privilege he previously received.” The filing says the university later argued his position was a twelve-month, on-site role - an expectation he claims applied to him but not to female employees who worked remotely.
One allegation speaks directly to HR practice. The complaint says his supervisor asked Human Resources for “the correct HR wording to use to deny the work from home that will reinforce that his position is expected to be performed on site and making it more about his role than about the individual.” It also says the university's own alternate work location policy identified non-exempt staff as eligible for occasional telecommuting.
The employee says the pressure grew after he spoke up. He filed an internal ethics report, then a named discrimination complaint through the university's EthicsPoint system on March 16, 2026, and a charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Florida's civil rights agency on April 20, 2026. On the day he filed the internal complaint, the filing says, he was suddenly told his timecard was overdue with no prior warning. He also describes being cut off socially, handed stacked deadlines after returning from leave, and a yelling outburst by his supervisor.
The EEOC dismissed his charge and issued a notice of his right to sue in August 2026, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The university, through its general counsel, denied the allegations in a position statement to the agency dated May 18, 2026.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the claims.
