Rejected male applicant may proceed with gender bias suit

A rejected male applicant for a University of Cincinnati professorship can still proceed with his gender discrimination litigation even though the position he sought was never filled, a federal appeals court said Friday.   

Mark Charlton-Perkins, a male research scientist, applied for a professorship at the University of Cincinnati in late 2017, according to Friday’s ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Mark Charlton-Perkins v. University of Cincinnati et. al. 

After he was determined to be the most-qualified candidate, a dean said he believed the most appropriate course was to focus on women candidates, the ruling said. The search committee’s chair objected and the search was canceled. 

Mr. Charlton-Perkins filed suit in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, charging gender discrimination and asserting a failure-to-hire claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.   

The court dismissed the case on the basis the lawsuit was not “ripe” because the position was never filled. 

The ruling was overturned by a three-judge appeals court panel. “The crux of the district court’s jurisdictional analysis is that Charlton-Perkins suffered no ‘discrete harm’ because some other candidate never received the relevant position,” the ruling said. 

“But that conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise,” the ruling said. “No matter whether somebody else ever got the spot, it has always been the case that Charlton-Perkins was denied the spot. So, Charlton-Perkins has always had that de facto injury – he has always been stuck with the denial – no matter whether someone else got the position instead,” the ruling said. 

“For that matter, Charlton-Perkins himself could later get the job and it would not erase the fact that he was denied the opportunity to get it in the first instance in 2018,” the ruling said, in remanding the case to the lower court. 

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.