The Sturm College of Law is located at 2255 E. Evans Ave. on the University of Denver campus. (BusinessDen file)
A federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit of a University of Denver professor who claimed that he was defamed and denied a teaching contract because he is a man.
David Schott, a law professor who also runs DU’s trial advocacy program, sued the school more than two-and-a-half years ago, in June 2021. He accused DU of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits favoritism on the basis of sex.
But U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello determined Jan. 4 that Schott has not been discriminated against and, in fact, has not suffered any career setbacks at all.
“Mr. Schott does not dispute that he remains employed at Sturm College of Law in the same position, with the same titles,” the judge wrote. “It is also undisputed that Mr. Schott’s salary has not decreased, and he has received merit salary increases.”
An attorney for Schott, Brian Moore, said that Arguello’s decision does not close the case.
“We think that ruling was clear error, and intend to appeal. Almost anyone who does not enjoy a lifetime appointment would agree that stripping someone of job security is a significant adverse action,” Moore said in a light jab at the judge, who has a lifetime appointment.
Schott’s saga began in 2016, when DU received reports from female law students of sexism within the trial advocacy program. One student said that Schott had asked her and other women whether their husbands approved of them being on the trial team and criticized her for complaining about the sex jokes that a male student told, Arguello’s ruling states.
David Schott
Schott, who had been a professor for 11 years by then, denied the allegations and asked the school to investigate. It didn’t, but DU and Schott agreed that the trial advocacy program would require anti-discrimination training and improve its anti-discrimination guidelines.
In 2018, it came time for Schott to reapply for a seven-year teaching contract. An associate dean at DU, tasked with providing information on Schott to a faculty review committee, made reference to the students’ allegations of sexism in 2016, along with complaints from Schott’s female colleagues. The committee spoke to Schott, who denied all allegations.
That faculty review committee, along with a second committee formed in 2019, recommended that Schott not be given another seven-year contract. DU agreed.
Schott alleges that the associate law school dean, Viva Moffat, was retaliating against him because he had reported a sexist and racist comment of hers to the dean of the law school. Schott claims that Moffat told him in 2016 that she did “not want to see white men teaching anymore” in the trial advocacy program. Moffat and DU deny she said that.
The case was set to go to a jury trial in May of this year. Before it could, DU asked Arguello to dismiss the case. The judge heard from both sides, then sided with DU.
In order to allege employment discrimination and retaliation, Schott first needed to show there had been a negative effect on his employment, Arguello determined. He couldn’t.
“Mr. Schott acknowledged that he has not sought medical treatment, has not been fired, his pay has not been reduced, and he has received merit raises from the university in the years following the 2016 allegations and his contract nonrenewal,” she wrote Jan. 4.
With that, the judge threw out Schott’s Title IX claim. She ruled that 10 other claims he made against DU involve state law, not federal law, and so don’t belong in her court.
Arguello ordered Schott to pay all attorney fees and court costs that DU has amassed defending against his lawsuit over the past two-and-a-half years. DU has until Jan. 18 to provide an accounting of those fees and costs for the judge’s approval.
“Nothing in the court’s ruling contradicts Professor Schott’s central allegations in this case: that DU defamed him; retaliated against him for opposing illegal discrimination; and breached his contract by failing to renew his seven-year appointment,” Moore said Monday. “All the court did was rule that DU’s refusal to reappoint Professor Schott to a new seven-year term was not a significant enough adverse action to support claims under Title IX.”
Moore said that his client will now pursue in state court those 10 state law claims that Arguello dismissed. They include defamation, breach of contract and wage violations.
“Professor Schott has worked tirelessly for DU’s students for many years, building its extremely successful advocacy program. He looks forward to presenting to a jury the evidence of how DU has treated him in return, and to receiving the jury’s verdict,” Moore said.
The University of Denver was represented by attorneys Jimmy Goh and Erin Rayner Mangum with the Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete law firm in Denver. They and spokespeople for the university did not answer requests for comment about the judge’s decision.
The Sturm College of Law is located at 2255 E. Evans Ave. on the University of Denver campus. (BusinessDen file)
A federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit of a University of Denver professor who claimed that he was defamed and denied a teaching contract because he is a man.
David Schott, a law professor who also runs DU’s trial advocacy program, sued the school more than two-and-a-half years ago, in June 2021. He accused DU of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits favoritism on the basis of sex.
But U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello determined Jan. 4 that Schott has not been discriminated against and, in fact, has not suffered any career setbacks at all.
“Mr. Schott does not dispute that he remains employed at Sturm College of Law in the same position, with the same titles,” the judge wrote. “It is also undisputed that Mr. Schott’s salary has not decreased, and he has received merit salary increases.”
An attorney for Schott, Brian Moore, said that Arguello’s decision does not close the case.
“We think that ruling was clear error, and intend to appeal. Almost anyone who does not enjoy a lifetime appointment would agree that stripping someone of job security is a significant adverse action,” Moore said in a light jab at the judge, who has a lifetime appointment.
Schott’s saga began in 2016, when DU received reports from female law students of sexism within the trial advocacy program. One student said that Schott had asked her and other women whether their husbands approved of them being on the trial team and criticized her for complaining about the sex jokes that a male student told, Arguello’s ruling states.
David Schott
Schott, who had been a professor for 11 years by then, denied the allegations and asked the school to investigate. It didn’t, but DU and Schott agreed that the trial advocacy program would require anti-discrimination training and improve its anti-discrimination guidelines.
In 2018, it came time for Schott to reapply for a seven-year teaching contract. An associate dean at DU, tasked with providing information on Schott to a faculty review committee, made reference to the students’ allegations of sexism in 2016, along with complaints from Schott’s female colleagues. The committee spoke to Schott, who denied all allegations.
That faculty review committee, along with a second committee formed in 2019, recommended that Schott not be given another seven-year contract. DU agreed.
Schott alleges that the associate law school dean, Viva Moffat, was retaliating against him because he had reported a sexist and racist comment of hers to the dean of the law school. Schott claims that Moffat told him in 2016 that she did “not want to see white men teaching anymore” in the trial advocacy program. Moffat and DU deny she said that.
The case was set to go to a jury trial in May of this year. Before it could, DU asked Arguello to dismiss the case. The judge heard from both sides, then sided with DU.
In order to allege employment discrimination and retaliation, Schott first needed to show there had been a negative effect on his employment, Arguello determined. He couldn’t.
“Mr. Schott acknowledged that he has not sought medical treatment, has not been fired, his pay has not been reduced, and he has received merit raises from the university in the years following the 2016 allegations and his contract nonrenewal,” she wrote Jan. 4.
With that, the judge threw out Schott’s Title IX claim. She ruled that 10 other claims he made against DU involve state law, not federal law, and so don’t belong in her court.
Arguello ordered Schott to pay all attorney fees and court costs that DU has amassed defending against his lawsuit over the past two-and-a-half years. DU has until Jan. 18 to provide an accounting of those fees and costs for the judge’s approval.
“Nothing in the court’s ruling contradicts Professor Schott’s central allegations in this case: that DU defamed him; retaliated against him for opposing illegal discrimination; and breached his contract by failing to renew his seven-year appointment,” Moore said Monday. “All the court did was rule that DU’s refusal to reappoint Professor Schott to a new seven-year term was not a significant enough adverse action to support claims under Title IX.”
Moore said that his client will now pursue in state court those 10 state law claims that Arguello dismissed. They include defamation, breach of contract and wage violations.
“Professor Schott has worked tirelessly for DU’s students for many years, building its extremely successful advocacy program. He looks forward to presenting to a jury the evidence of how DU has treated him in return, and to receiving the jury’s verdict,” Moore said.
The University of Denver was represented by attorneys Jimmy Goh and Erin Rayner Mangum with the Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete law firm in Denver. They and spokespeople for the university did not answer requests for comment about the judge’s decision.
