MARK CHARLTON-PERKINS v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI; KENNETH PETREN and GEORGE UETZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES - Articles

All Content

MARK CHARLTON-PERKINS v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI; KENNETH PETREN and GEORGE UETZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jun 3, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Marc D. Mezibov, MEZIBOV BUTLER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Evan T. Priestle, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): SILER, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Appellant Mark Charlton-Perkins, a male research scientist, applied for a professorship at the University of Cincinnati (“UC”) in late 2017. Yet after UC determined him the most-qualified candidate for the position, or so he alleges, it refused to hire him on account of his gender. Adding insult to injury, UC then discriminatorily canceled the job search itself, ensuring that Charlton-Perkins could never fill the position. In response, he filed the present lawsuit. But the district court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because nobody ever filled the canceled position, it reasoned, Charlton-Perkins’s claims never ripened into an adverse employment action, and thus he suffered no concrete injury cognizable in federal court. We now reverse. Charlton-Perkins has plausibly alleged a ripe employment-discrimination claim, so his suit may proceed.

Attachments: