Professor’s ‘Twitter tirade’ — not bias — caused opportunities to be revoked, 6th Circuit finds

Summary

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling that Kent State University did not discriminate or retaliate against a transgender professor when it revoked an offered teaching-load reallocation and denied a transfer request. The court found the professor’s sustained, profanity-laced Twitter attacks on colleagues and the disciplines involved were the proximate cause of the university’s decisions, not the professor’s gender identity. University officials cited violations of internal policy and concerns about the professor’s interactions with colleagues and university service when making personnel decisions.

Key Points

The 6th Circuit affirmed that Kent State’s decision to rescind a reallocation and to deny a transfer was motivated by the professor’s social media conduct, not by discriminatory animus.
In 2021 the professor had been in talks to lead a proposed Centre for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and to develop a new gender studies major; an offer to reallocate teaching time was later revoked.
Court records describe a weeks-long, profanity-laced Twitter tirade in which the professor attacked colleagues, academic fields and university leadership — conduct the university said violated policy against attacking colleagues.
Committees denying the transfer cited the professor’s withdrawal from university service, negative interactions with other faculty and departmental needs; the courts noted no discussion of gender identity in those deliberations.
The ruling underscores the growing role of social media conduct in employment disputes and the latitude institutions have to discipline staff for posts that breach workplace policies.

Context and relevance

This decision is a useful bellwether for HR, university administrators and in-house counsel: courts will scrutinise the employer’s stated reasons and the record for evidence of discriminatory intent, but sustained hostile social media behaviour that violates workplace policies can legitimately justify adverse employment actions. The case sits alongside other recent rulings showing employers have room to manage staff conduct online, provided actions are documented and not pretextual.

Why should I read this?

Quick and honest — if you manage people, write social media rules or advise on employment law, this one’s worth a skim. It shows what courts actually look at when online conduct and discrimination claims collide, and why good documentation and clear social media policies matter.

Author style

Punchy: the ruling spells out that repeated public attacks on colleagues can sink otherwise promising internal opportunities. HR and legal teams should read the detail — it’s a practical reminder about policy enforcement and record-keeping.