Do I have a case for defamation by a university professor?

Lexi, Chatbot

I understand this situation can be concerning. Have you experienced any negative consequences as a result of your professor’s actions?

Lexi, Chatbot

Is there anything else the lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured they’ll be able to help with your situation.

Legal Eagle

Thank you for the detailed information. Based on what you’ve shared, here are key legal considerations:

1) Possible defamation:
Statements like “not dangerous but call campus police” may be framed as opinion or risk-management, not factual assertions. Defamation hinges on false statements of fact that harm reputation. Here, the “gender dynamics” remark and police instruction are likely opinions/precautionary guidance, which weakens a defamation claim.

2) Sex-based discrimination / Title IX:
Invoking “gender dynamics” and instructing faculty to treat your follow-up as “harassment” and to call police—while simultaneously stating you are not dangerous—can raise a Title IX concern if your sex (and/or perceived physicality) was a motivating factor in denying you equal access to program benefits (e.g., ability to communicate about policy, attend class without police escalation). This could support a hostile environment or disparate treatment theory, especially if similarly situated students were not treated this way.

3) Retaliation (Title IX / university policy):
You pursued a policy-based accommodation and escalated through the channels the university provided. Adverse actions linked to that protected activity (e.g., labeling you “unprofessional,” threatening police involvement for continuing to ask about policy, discouraging dialogue) can support a retaliation claim if they would deter a reasonable student from engaging in the process.

4) Disability/parental status accommodations vs. academic discretion:
Your request hinged on extenuating circumstances and childcare obligations. While professors retain academic discretion, where institutional policy allows case-by-case exceptions (“other compelling reasons as approved by instructor or college dean”), denial must be non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory and applied consistently. If discretion was exercised with bias (e.g., gender-based assumptions), that strengthens a complaint.

5) Internal grievance / OCR route:
Before litigation, universities require exhausting internal processes (EOS/Title IX, Dean of Students, Ombuds). If unresolved, you can file with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleging sex-based discrimination/retaliation.

Legal Eagle

As a text-based platform we can’t open PDFs here, but you can paste relevant excerpts—which you’ve done. That’s sufficient for preliminary analysis.

Legal Eagle

There are potential claims worth pursuing internally and, if needed, externally:

• Title IX sex discrimination/hostile environment: The “gender dynamics” rationale plus police-call instruction (despite “not dangerous”) for continuing to discuss a policy issue can evidence sex-based stereotyping and disparate treatment.
• Title IX retaliation: You used official channels to seek an exception; labeling that pushback as “unprofessional,” threatening reports, and directing police involvement can be materially adverse actions.
• Procedural/consistency concerns: Where policy allows “compelling reasons,” a denial must be applied even-handedly and without sex-based assumptions.

Litigation is possible but typically not step one. Start with the university’s EOS/Title IX complaint, preserve all emails, and request comparative data (how similar requests were handled). If the outcome is unsatisfactory, proceed to OCR and/or consult counsel.

Legal Eagle

I can help with a draft. Do you have a starter version?

Legal Eagle

Any other background?

Legal Eagle

Understood. Here’s a concise EOS/Title IX complaint draft you can adapt:

Subject: Title IX Complaint – Sex-Based Discrimination and Retaliation

To: [University/Title IX Office – email/portal]
From: [Your Name, Student ID]
Program/Course: BIOL Cellular Biology – Spring 2025
Respondents: Dr. (Instructor); [Associate Chair’s Name]; [Chair’s Name]

Summary:
I submit this complaint alleging sex-based discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title IX and university policy. After I requested exceptions to the attendance requirement due to unforeseen childcare obligations (partner’s 12–14-hour medical rotations; I work 10PM–6AM and provide daytime care), my instructor denied my request despite institutional policy allowing exceptions for “additional compelling reasons” with instructor/dean approval. After I escalated per university guidance, internal emails obtained via TPIA show:

• I was described as “not dangerous,” yet faculty were instructed to tell me the matter was “closed,” treat any follow-up as “harassment,” and “call campus police,” explicitly citing “gender dynamics.”
• I was labeled “unprofessional” for continuing to seek a policy-based exception through approved channels.

These actions chilled my ability to participate in the course, contributed to my withdrawal, and stigmatized me with law-enforcement escalation despite no threat. As a Black male, I believe sex-based stereotypes concerning “gender dynamics” and perceived physicality influenced these actions.

Facts (chronology):

1. Jan–Feb 2025: Regular course participation; childcare obligations later became acute.

2. Feb–Mar 2025: I requested exceptions beyond the one permitted absence, citing extenuating childcare needs; university policy allows “other compelling reasons” with approval.

3. Mar 20–21, 2025: Instructor denied, then labeled my continued policy inquiry “unprofessional;” internal emails from leadership advised faculty to call campus police if I persisted, referencing “gender dynamics,” while stating I was “not dangerous.”

4. Aftermath: I withdrew from the course; my appeal was denied.

Policy Violations:

• Title IX sex discrimination/hostile environment: Policing my protected academic inquiry and invoking “gender dynamics” as a reason to escalate to police, despite no threat.
• Retaliation: Adverse actions (police threat, unprofessionalism labeling, closing dialogue) following my protected activity (requesting an exception, escalating per policy).
• Inconsistent application of discretionary exception policy (“other compelling reasons”).

Requested Remedies:

1. Permission to retake BIOL at no cost; removal of any adverse notations related to this dispute.

2. Written non-retaliation assurances and training for involved faculty on Title IX obligations.

3. Review of attendance-exception practices to ensure nondiscriminatory, consistent application.

4. Consideration of monetary compensation for withdrawal-related academic and financial harm.

5. EOS monitoring to ensure future communications avoid police-escalation instructions absent credible threat.

Attachments:

• Email excerpts (TPIA) indicating “gender dynamics,” police-call instruction, and “not dangerous” language.
• My request and responses referencing policy language (“additional compelling reasons”).
• Proof of withdrawal/appeal denial.

I request prompt investigation and interim measures to prevent further harm or retaliation.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Student ID]
[Contact Information]

Legal Eagle

I can’t email directly from here. You can copy/paste the draft above into your document. If you’d like, I can also draft a short OCR complaint outline for later use.