A federal judge has dismissed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former chief diversity officer against Purdue University, ruling on September 17, 2026, that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, including the crucial element of "similarly situated comparators," to allow the case to proceed. The executive, who is Black, had alleged that the university’s disciplinary actions against him were racially motivated and that his sanctions were increased in retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. However, the court found the three colleagues he presented as comparable examples were not, in fact, similarly situated, and that the university’s actions were contextually legitimate.
The ruling, published on September 22, 2026, by Emilie Shumway for HR Dive, underscores the stringent evidentiary standards required in employment discrimination and retaliation cases, particularly the nuanced interpretation of what constitutes a "similarly situated comparator." For employers, this decision reinforces the importance of meticulous record-keeping, consistent application of disciplinary policies, and robust internal investigation processes to defend against such claims. For employees, it highlights the significant burden of proof necessary to establish discriminatory or retaliatory intent.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Allegations and Disciplinary Action
The case, identified as Hammonds v. Purdue University, originated from a series of disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiff, referred to as the diversity chief. The core of the university’s initial disciplinary findings against him revolved around his conduct concerning an executive assistant. Specifically, the plaintiff was sanctioned for revoking the assistant’s pre-existing remote workday privileges, an action reportedly driven by his frustration with her protected leave requests and time off. Furthermore, he was cited for moving more slowly in approving or denying her leave requests, conduct that Purdue deemed inappropriate and in violation of its internal policies.
This initial finding led to a set of sanctions against the diversity chief. While the precise nature of these initial sanctions was not fully detailed in the court’s public record, it is understood they were significant enough to prompt the plaintiff to seek redress. Following an internal appeal process initiated by the executive assistant, the university subsequently increased the sanctions imposed on the diversity chief. This escalation of penalties became a central point of contention in his subsequent legal challenge, as he argued it demonstrated a discriminatory motive and retaliatory intent.
The Critical Role of a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO)
To fully appreciate the context of this case, it’s essential to understand the demanding and often high-profile role of a Chief Diversity Officer. A CDO is typically a senior executive responsible for developing and implementing strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within an organization. This role often involves navigating complex social dynamics, addressing sensitive issues, and advocating for underrepresented groups, while also ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
CDOs are expected to lead by example, fostering an inclusive environment and upholding the highest standards of fair treatment. Their actions, particularly in managing their own teams, are often scrutinized to ensure they align with the very principles they espouse for the broader institution. When a CDO faces allegations of misconduct related to employee treatment, it can create a particularly challenging internal and public relations scenario for the university, underscoring the importance of clear, consistent, and equitable disciplinary processes at all levels, especially for those in leadership roles.
The Court’s Scrutiny: Why Comparators Failed
A cornerstone of proving employment discrimination under Title VII is demonstrating that the plaintiff was treated differently from "similarly situated" employees outside of their protected class. This legal standard requires comparators to be alike in all relevant aspects, including job responsibilities, supervisory status, severity and nature of misconduct, and disciplinary history. The court meticulously examined each of the three comparators offered by the diversity chief and found them to be fundamentally dissimilar, thereby undermining his claims of discriminatory treatment.
-
Comparator One: The Suspended Faculty Member
The first comparator was a White faculty member who also faced an investigation for alleged harassment violations. While this individual’s sanctions were reportedly reduced, in contrast to the plaintiff’s increased penalties, the judge noted a critical distinction: the faculty member’s actual sanctions were "significantly more severe." This individual was suspended without pay for two full years. In comparison, the plaintiff’s sanctions included a training mandate, the loss of a pay increase for one year, some temporary job alterations, and a letter of reprimand. The vast disparity in the severity of punishment—a two-year unpaid suspension versus lesser penalties—rendered this individual an inappropriate comparator. Furthermore, the court highlighted the difference in roles: the White worker was a faculty member, whereas the plaintiff was a cabinet-level senior executive. These distinct roles often come with different expectations, responsibilities, and disciplinary frameworks, making a direct comparison difficult. -
Comparator Two: The Unsanctioned Asian Employee
The second comparator was an Asian employee who faced "allegations of repeated misconduct" from one worker but ultimately received no sanctions. The plaintiff argued this demonstrated disparate treatment based on race. However, the court found this individual was also a poor comparator because the allegations against him were deemed less serious by the investigator and "did not rise to the level of harassment." This distinction in the severity and nature of the alleged misconduct is crucial. Employment law dictates that comparators must have engaged in misconduct of comparable seriousness. If one employee’s actions are determined to be less severe or fall short of a specific policy violation (like harassment), their lack of sanctions cannot be directly compared to another employee who was found to have committed a more serious offense. -
Comparator Three: The Time-Barred Misconduct Case
The final comparator presented was accused of "exposing himself inappropriately," a clearly more serious form of misconduct than that attributed to the diversity chief. While this individual’s complaint was dismissed, it was not due to a finding of innocence or a lesser charge. Instead, the complaint was dismissed because it fell outside Purdue University’s strict 120-day time period for incident reports. This procedural dismissal meant that the merits of the serious misconduct were never adjudicated, rendering this individual an unsuitable comparator. The court cannot compare a case dismissed on a technicality to one where the allegations were investigated and substantiated. This highlights the importance of adherence to internal policies and timelines in managing complaints.
Court’s Rationale for Dismissal: Beyond Comparators
Beyond the failure to establish similarly situated comparators, the court identified several other deficiencies in the plaintiff’s claims. The judge found that the diversity chief could not offer concrete evidence pointing toward a race-based motive in Purdue’s decisions. Without direct or strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, claims often falter. The court also determined that when the university increased sanctions against the plaintiff, they were following an appeal from the executive assistant and that these increased sanctions were "contextually legitimate." This finding suggests that Purdue’s actions were based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason—responding to an internal appeal and reassessing the severity of the initial misconduct. This aligns with the legal principle that employers are generally afforded deference in their disciplinary decisions as long as those decisions are not based on illegal discriminatory factors.
The court reiterated a fundamental distinction in employment law: "Unfair treatment and retaliation for legally protected activity are not one and the same." This statement encapsulates a critical challenge for plaintiffs in discrimination cases. While an employee may genuinely feel they were treated unfairly, legal protection only extends to unfair treatment that stems from discrimination based on a protected characteristic (like race) or retaliation for engaging in protected activity (like filing an EEOC complaint). Without that direct link, perceived unfairness, however real to the employee, does not constitute a legal violation.
The Retaliation Claim Undermined
The diversity chief also alleged that Purdue University increased his sanctions in retaliation for him filing a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. Retaliation claims typically require proof of three elements: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer took an adverse action against the employee; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
In this case, the court dismissed the retaliation claim, citing issues with both "timing and lack of knowledge." For a causal connection to be established through timing, the adverse action must typically occur relatively close in time to the protected activity. If there is a significant delay, or if the decision-makers were unaware of the protected activity when they took the adverse action, the causal link can be broken. The court’s finding implies that either the timing between the EEOC filing and the increased sanctions was not sufficiently proximate to suggest retaliation, or, more likely, the university officials responsible for increasing the sanctions were unaware of the EEOC charge at the time they made their decision. Without knowledge of the protected activity, an employer cannot be deemed to have retaliated against it.
Legal Precedent and "Similarly Situated" Standard
The ruling in Hammonds v. Purdue University reinforces the enduring importance of the "similarly situated comparator" standard in employment discrimination lawsuits across the United States. This standard remains a critical hurdle for plaintiffs seeking to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
A relevant precedent highlighted in the original report is the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in June concerning Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. This case clarified that even as evidentiary burdens for majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII cases might shift, the requirement for such plaintiffs to show they were treated less favorably than a similarly situated comparator did not invalidate requirements. While Hammonds involved a Black plaintiff, the underlying principle is universally applicable: irrespective of a plaintiff’s protected class, demonstrating that others outside that class, who engaged in comparable misconduct and held comparable positions, received more favorable treatment, is often indispensable. This consistent application of the comparator standard across different contexts underscores its foundational role in Title VII jurisprudence.
Implications for Employers and HR Professionals
This ruling carries significant implications for human resources departments, legal counsel, and management across all sectors, particularly in higher education.
- Robust Documentation and Investigation: The case highlights the necessity for meticulous documentation of all disciplinary actions, investigations, and the rationale behind every decision. Detailed records of employee misconduct, investigation findings, and disciplinary matrices can be crucial in defending against discrimination claims.
- Consistent Policy Application: Employers must strive for consistency in applying their policies and disciplinary measures. While absolute uniformity can be challenging, any deviations must be clearly justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory factors (e.g., differences in job role, severity of misconduct, or disciplinary history).
- Clear Definitions of Misconduct: Clear and well-communicated definitions of misconduct and corresponding disciplinary actions help ensure fairness and provide a solid foundation for defensive legal arguments.
- Training for Managers and HR: Ongoing training for managers and HR professionals on anti-discrimination laws, retaliation prevention, and proper disciplinary procedures is paramount. This includes understanding what constitutes protected activity and how to avoid even the appearance of retaliation.
- Understanding "Similarly Situated": HR professionals need a deep understanding of the legal definition of "similarly situated" comparators to properly assess internal equity and to prepare for potential legal challenges. This involves considering job function, reporting structure, performance history, and the precise nature and severity of alleged infractions.
- Challenges in DEI Roles: The case also subtly points to the unique challenges faced by individuals in DEI leadership roles. While advocating for equity, they are also held to high standards of conduct and must navigate complex employee relations issues, sometimes becoming targets of internal grievances themselves. This necessitates clear guidelines for their own conduct and performance evaluations.
Purdue University’s Stance
While Purdue University has not issued a public statement specifically on this ruling, universities typically maintain a policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation or specific personnel matters. However, their legal defense in this case reflects a commitment to upholding their internal policies, disciplinary procedures, and due process. The successful dismissal of the lawsuit suggests the university was able to demonstrate that its actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and were consistently applied within the framework of its established policies. This outcome allows the university to continue its operations without the shadow of a discrimination judgment, reinforcing its internal governance.
Conclusion: The Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases
The dismissal of the former diversity chief’s lawsuit against Purdue University serves as a potent reminder of the high legal bar for plaintiffs in discrimination and retaliation cases. The court’s meticulous analysis of the "similarly situated comparator" element and its rejection of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding discriminatory motive and retaliatory intent underscore that feeling unfairly treated, while personally impactful, does not automatically translate into a legally actionable claim. For employees pursuing such claims, the lesson is clear: thorough preparation, robust evidence, and a precise understanding of legal definitions are indispensable. For employers, the outcome reaffirms the critical importance of transparent, consistent, and legally defensible human resources practices, particularly in managing disciplinary actions and internal investigations, to withstand legal scrutiny.
