In Clay v. Xavier University of Louisiana, No. CV 26-349, 2026 WL 2525478 (E.D. La. Aug. 27, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Initially, the court held that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a claim of hostile work environment, since she did not alleged with specificity “severe or pervasive” conduct necessary to state such a claim.
As to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, however,
The Court finds that Clay has stated a plausible claim against Xavier for retaliation stemming from Clay’s complaints in March 2022, March 2023, and September 2023. Clay sufficiently alleges that she engaged in protected activity (i.e., complaints to HR), that she suffered an adverse employment action (i.e., the denial of tenure), and that a causal link exists between Clay’s protected activity and the adverse action. Specifically with respect to causation, Clay alleges that “[t]he evaluation irregularities [in Frazier’s evaluation], conflicted decision-making process, exclusion of favorable documentation, and selective reliance on negative feedback demonstrate retaliatory motive.”93 Whether this can be proven remains to be seen, but the Court finds that Clay has adequately alleged causation such that her claim survives a motion to dismiss and may proceed to discovery.
Xavier’s argument that Clay’s complaints to HR concerned only Hite’s racist conduct toward students, and thus did not amount to protected activity under Title VII, falls short because Clay also alleges that she complained to HR that Frazier’s actions “created a hostile work environment and constituted harassment.” And, finally, in urging that Clay’s retaliation claim is time-barred because her protected activity occurred more than 300 days before her EEOC charge, Xavier misapplies the governing law. Title VII’s statute of limitations in Louisiana bars only those claims not administratively exhausted within 300 days of the adverse employment action, not the protected activity. Hence, Clay has plausibly stated a claim for retaliation against Xavier.
(Citations omitted.)
Accordingly, plaintiff’s retaliation claim will proceed.