The chair wore two hats in the review - and the professor says that was no accident
A former University of Chicago professor says the school blocked their tenure review before they could even apply - and now they are suing.
A former assistant professor of comparative literature filed a discrimination and breach-of-contract complaint against the University of Chicago in Chicago federal court on July 7, 2026. The lawsuit also names two faculty members - the department's current chair and a former chair - as defendants.
The professor, according to the filing, spent eight years on what they describe as a clear track toward tenure. A 2022-23 renewal review praised their teaching and scholarship, the complaint says, and set July 1, 2025 as the date they could apply. Then, according to the complaint, the process fell apart.
The filing alleges the department chair circulated only a "partial dossier," held a tenure vote over Zoom "without following due process and without administrative oversight," and told the professor the department would not move their case forward - all before an application had been submitted.
A central thread for HR readers is a conflict-of-role claim. The complaint alleges the same person served as both department chair and chair of the tenure committee, even though the university's guidelines, as described in the filing, treat those as two separate roles. The reason, the complaint notes, is that a chair "who influences the salaries and career progress of all faculty" could hold outsized sway over the committee.
The filing also collects remarks it attributes to the chair. When the professor questioned criticism of an art project connected to their research, the chair allegedly said, "I don't pay you to make art." On another occasion, the complaint says, the chair warned that "the next few years must become the most conservative of your career." And after the professor requested a course release - a reduction in teaching duties - to manage a heavy administrative load, the filing says the chair replied, "I have power and you don't," and asked, "What can you do for me?"
The professor, who is Jewish and studies working-class, anti-Zionist, and anarchist Jewish literature and history, alleges the university treated that scholarship and their public speech as marks against them. The complaint points to a December 2024 campus talk in support of scholars in Gaza, and says the chair later advised the professor to leave "your speech at the Gaza rally" off their CV. The filing also alleges the department repeatedly scheduled gatherings on Friday evenings, during Shabbat, and left the professor off invitations even after a written request for religious inclusivity.
The complaint further alleges discrimination based on race, national origin, and sex, saying the professor - a Latina woman - was held to higher scholarship standards than white and male colleagues.
Higher up, the complaint says the outcome went unchallenged. It alleges a vice provost accepted the department's decision "within just over three hours" and that senior leadership conducted no substantive review of its own. The professor's appointment ended June 30, 2026.
For HR and workplace-policy professionals, the case is a reminder that a promotion or review process is only as defensible as its paper trail. It turns on documented procedure - which materials were reviewed, whether roles meant to stay separate were combined, whether promised mentorship and feedback were delivered, and whether protected characteristics or protected speech influenced a career decision.
The complaint brings claims under Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The professor filed after the EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on June 9, 2026.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled.
