The retaliation claim turns on what his employer did after he complained - not the firing
A chemistry professor cleared of federal charges is suing the University of Kansas, alleging it retaliated against him after he complained of discrimination.
According to a complaint filed on July 21, 2026 in the US District Court for the District of Kansas, the professor claims the university violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The filing describes a retaliation claim; the university has not yet responded, and none of the allegations has been tested in court.
The complaint traces the dispute to 2014, when the university recruited the professor as a tenured associate professor in chemical and petroleum engineering. It says he built a research lab supported by more than $4 million in federal funding from the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Energy.
In April 2019, according to the filing, an anonymous - and, the complaint alleges, ultimately false - tip accused him of "espionage." The complaint says the university reported the tip to the US Department of Justice and then assisted in building criminal charges against him. He was arrested in August 2019 and charged with wire fraud and federal program fraud.
The turn most relevant to HR professionals comes next. The complaint alleges the university terminated him on January 6, 2023, while his criminal case was still unresolved, without the hearing before its Faculty Rights Board that his contract required. According to the filing, the two sides had agreed in writing to pause that hearing until the criminal proceedings ended, and the university ended his employment anyway.
The professor filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 16, 2023, alleging his firing was motivated by race, ethnicity, and national origin. On July 11, 2024, the complaint states, a federal appeals court reversed his last remaining conviction, completing his exoneration.
When he asked to return, the filing says, the university declined to fully reinstate him. Instead, according to the complaint, it "provisionally" reinstated him only so he could pursue the internal appeal his contract guaranteed. After he filed his discrimination lawsuit in January 2025, the complaint alleges the university changed the composition of that appeal board - standing up a temporary panel chaired by a non-tenured faculty member, rather than the all-tenured board it says the university's own policies required.
The professor objected in April 2025, according to the filing, but the board did not reject those objections until March 11, 2026, nearly a year later. The complaint alleges he was left in "indefinite procedural limbo," unable to contest the charges against him or secure reinstatement. In April 2026, the filing says, he accepted a lower-paying, untenured position in Arizona.
For HR professionals, the case is built around what an organization does after an employee raises a bias complaint. The professor's theory, as pleaded, is not that the original discipline alone was unlawful - it is that the university withheld full reinstatement and reshaped an internal appeal process because he exercised his right to complain. The complaint frames the timing as central, alleging the university acted "at the first available opportunity."
The filing also puts internal grievance and appeal panels in focus. It alleges that changing who sits on a review board - in this instance, to faculty whose own advancement remained subject to the institution's discretion - can itself form part of a retaliation claim rather than a defense against one.
The professor is seeking back pay, damages for reputational injury and emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on the claims.
