Aarion Gross worked as a full-time Physician Assistant and faculty member in the University of Toledo’s College of Medicine and Life Sciences from October 2021 through June 2024. He also served as the Department of Family Medicine’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Officer. In that role, Gross was responsible for developing programs and strategies to serve minority students and patients. According to Gross, several department staff members interfered with his efforts, stating that he received “special treatment” because he was African American and gay and referring to him as “divisive” and “immature.” Gross alleged that he reported this conduct to the University but that no corrective action was taken. In November 2023, he submitted a written complaint alleging discrimination.
On January 8, 2024, the Dean of the College notified Gross that his faculty appointment would not be renewed and would terminate on June 30, 2024, unless the Department Chair rescinded the termination request. Gross alleged that around the same time he was told the nonrenewal decision was not final and that he could potentially avoid termination if he modified his behavior. Gross had no disciplinary history with the University. During the following months, he claimed he was denied opportunities to expand his medical practice and advance his career and that discussions about modifying his behavior were “demeaning and pointless.”
On March 4, 2024, Gross submitted a written resignation effective June 30, 2024. In the email, he stated that he had decided not to renew his contract and intended to pursue new career opportunities while continuing his clinical duties through the end of the term. Gross later characterized the resignation as a constructive discharge resulting from the discrimination he allegedly experienced.
On December 23, 2024, Gross filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice in May 2025, and Gross filed a lawsuit against the University of Toledo.
Before filing suit in federal court under Title VII, a plaintiff must first exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter. In Ohio, a person has 300 days after an alleged discriminatory act to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
Here, the University moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Gross had failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies and that he had not plausibly alleged an adverse employment action because he voluntarily resigned.
The Court rejected the University’s exhaustion argument. The University argued the limitations period began when Gross received the January 2024 letter notifying him of the nonrenewal decision. Gross argued that the limitations period began when he resigned in March 2024 because the earlier letter was not a final decision and left open the possibility that the nonrenewal could be reconsidered if he modified his behavior. The Court found that the letter was somewhat ambiguous and a close call. However, because the case is at the pleading stage, the Court concluded Gross had plausibly alleged that the termination decision was tentative and subject to revision based on his future performance. Because of that possibility, the Court held that dismissal based on untimeliness was not appropriate.
The Court also rejected the University’s argument that Gross failed to allege an adverse employment action. Although voluntary resignation ordinarily is not considered an adverse employment action, an employee may proceed if the resignation amounts to a constructive discharge. To establish constructive discharge, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Accepting Gross’s allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including claims that staff blocked his DEI work, accused him of receiving special treatment because of his race or sexual orientation, and that the University ignored his complaints, the Court concluded he had plausibly alleged constructive discharge. The Court therefore denied the University’s motion to dismiss.
Gross v. Univ. of Toledo (N.D.Ohio Jan. 29, 2026) 2026 LX 38509.
Note: This case highlights two procedural issues common in employment discrimination litigation. First, courts will closely examine when an employment decision becomes sufficiently final to trigger the limitations period for filing an EEOC charge. Second, even when an employee resigns, discrimination claims may proceed if the employee plausibly alleges that intolerable working conditions forced the resignation, constituting constructive discharge.