University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax has appealed a federal judge’s dismissal of her discrimination lawsuit against Penn.
Wax’s notice of appeal — filed on Sept. 26 — comes nearly one month after senior United States District Judge Timothy Savage granted Penn’s motion to dismiss her complaint, which contended that the University’s speech code violates civil rights law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear Wax's petition.
The initial 53-page complaint, which Wax submitted on Jan. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Penn’s speech policies and sanctions broke several federal laws. Wax’s lawyers argued that the University violated Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit racial discrimination within programs that receive federal funding and in employment, respectively.
A University spokesperson declined a request for comment. A request for comment was left with Wax’s lawyer.
In his Aug. 27 opinion dismissing the case, Savage wrote that “Wax does not allege facts showing that she was discriminated against.”
“As much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case,” Savage added. “It is a discrimination case brought under federal antidiscrimination laws. It calls for us to determine whether offensive comments directed at racial minorities are protected by those laws.”
He continued that the federal statutes cited by Wax “forbid discrimination based on the race of the speakers, not the racial content of their speech.”
In response to Wax’s suit, the University Board of Trustees motioned to dismiss the case in March, arguing that Wax failed to state and support her claims.
RELATED:
Judge grants Penn’s motion to dismiss Amy Wax’s racial discrimination lawsuit against University
Federal judge denies Amy Wax a preliminary injunction in her breach of contract case against Penn
In June, Savage denied Wax a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit, concluding that “Wax will not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction.”
In her motion for an injunction, Wax alleged that the University’s actions harmed her “reputation and continue to violate her civil rights” under federal law. At the time, Savage wrote that Wax had failed to prove that the University’s actions led to imminent reputational harm.
