Zack De Piero, a white male and a former Assistant Teaching Professor at Penn State Abington, brought claims against the University, alleging that it created a racially hostile work environment and unlawfully retaliated against him after he filed internal and external complaints challenging the University’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
De Piero’s claims were largely based on his experience working in Penn State Abington’s English Department from 2018 to 2022. Throughout his tenure, De Piero expressed concern that Penn State’s initiatives, including professional development sessions, campus-wide emails, and diversity events, conveyed what he described as a race-essentialist ideology that singled out White faculty members. His lawsuit focused on twelve incidents occurring over a three-and-a-half-year period, which he argued collectively created an abusive and discriminatory workplace. These included email discussions of antiracist writing pedagogy, a Zoom forum about the George Floyd protests where a University official encouraged White attendees to “hold their breath” longer as a metaphor for privilege, and diversity-related communications commemorating Juneteenth.
In addition to these campus-wide activities, De Piero pointed to individualized actions taken against him after he complained about the University’s focus on race-related programming. He cited the filing of internal bias reports by and against him, disciplinary memos placed in his personnel file, and a downgraded evaluation in the “Service” component of his annual performance review. He contended that these acts, both collectively and individually, demonstrated both a hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation for his protected complaints.
Hostile Work Environment
The Court first addressed De Piero’s hostile work environment claims, which were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The Court examined whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of De Piero’s employment, a requirement under all three statutes. After reviewing the factual record, the Court found that De Piero’s allegations, even taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to him, could not meet either the “severe” or “pervasive” standard required to survive summary judgment.
The Court distinguished between claims based on isolated or sporadic incidents and those based on a continuous pattern of abusive conduct. It found that most of the events De Piero cited involved campus-wide programming or generalized discussions of race and racism in an academic setting, none of which directly targeted him because of his race. The Court noted that the diversity trainings, professional development sessions, and faculty discussions De Piero challenged were voluntary in nature. He had chosen to attend many of the events and even sought out recordings of presentations he missed. The Court emphasized that participating in academic conversations about race—even ones that may cause discomfort—is not equivalent to suffering actionable racial harassment under federal or state law.
Furthermore, the Court found that Penn State’s conduct was far less extreme than what courts typically require to meet the threshold for a severe or pervasive hostile work environment. Unlike cases where plaintiffs endure racial slurs, threats, or physical intimidation, De Piero’s allegations primarily concerned expressions of social and academic viewpoints with which he disagreed. While the Court acknowledged that he may have experienced offensive feelings, it reiterated that subjective offense alone does not satisfy the objective legal standard.
Retaliation
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer took some adverse action against him, either after or contemporaneous with the protected activity; and, (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Here, the Court concluded that De Piero had not met this burden. While it was undisputed that De Piero engaged in protected activity by filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge and internal complaints with Penn State’s Affirmative Action Office, the Court found that he could not show any materially adverse employment action in response. The two actions he cited—the placement of a “Performance Expectations” memorandum in his personnel file and the downgrade of one category of his annual review—were insufficient as a matter of law.
The Court explained that a written reprimand or negative evaluation, without more, does not constitute an adverse employment action unless it materially changes the employee’s terms or conditions of employment. In De Piero’s case, there was no evidence that he suffered any demotion, reduction in salary, loss of benefits, or substantial change in responsibilities. To the contrary, Penn State renewed his teaching contract, awarded him a pay raise, and made no alterations to his employment status. Ultimately, De Piero voluntarily resigned to accept another academic position elsewhere.
The Court also noted that De Piero’s own conduct undermined his claims. The record included text messages suggesting that he sought opportunities to document grievances against Penn State, raising additional doubts about the sincerity of his claims. For instance, after filing an internal bias complaint, he boasted to a friend that he had secretly recorded meetings and shared the recordings with an attorney.
Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.
De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University (E.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 723029; De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University (E.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 763812.
Note: In this case, the Court carefully distinguished between uncomfortable or unpopular discussions about race—which are not prohibited under federal anti-discrimination laws—and actionable discrimination or retaliation that materially alters an employee’s work environment or opportunities. The Court underscored that academic institutions must be free to engage in difficult conversations about race and equity, particularly following major national events, without fear that doing so will automatically expose them to liability.