The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of Dr. Mark Charlton-Perkins' discrimination claims against the University of Cincinnati. The court's decision, issued on August 5, 2026, stems from a job search cancellation that Charlton-Perkins alleges was influenced by bias related to his gender and race. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the application of Title IX protections and the Equal Protection Clause in employment discrimination cases involving individuals residing outside the United States.
Charlton-Perkins, a U.S. citizen who lived in the United Kingdom, applied for an assistant professor position at the University of Cincinnati in 2017. Despite being recommended for the role by a faculty panel, the university canceled the search after concerns were raised regarding his gender and the potential for a conflict of interest involving a committee member. The case has drawn attention not only for its implications on employment law but also for its exploration of how U.S. laws apply to citizens living abroad.
Dr. Mark Charlton-Perkins, the plaintiff in this case, is a U.S. citizen who was born in South Africa and later moved to the United Kingdom for work. He applied for a position in the University of Cincinnati’s biology department after a thorough interview process. Initially, he received strong support from the search committee, which recommended him as the top candidate. However, after receiving negative feedback regarding his gender and race from other faculty members, the university decided to cancel the search altogether.
The university's decision to cancel the search was influenced by concerns about hiring a white male candidate over two well-qualified female candidates. The head of the biology department, Dr. George Uetz, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Kenneth Petren, expressed worries about the political climate surrounding affirmative action and the potential backlash from hiring a male candidate. Despite the committee's recommendation, they ultimately decided to focus on hiring women candidates first, leading to the cancellation of the search.
Charlton-Perkins filed a lawsuit against the University of Cincinnati, claiming violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. He sought reinstatement as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, stating that Title IX only protects individuals physically present in the United States at the time of the alleged discrimination, and that sovereign and qualified immunities barred his equal protection claims.
The Sixth Circuit Court, led by Judge John K. Bush, affirmed the district court's decision. The court ruled that Title IX does not extend its protections to U.S. citizens living abroad, stating, "when the alleged discrimination took place and Charlton-Perkins learned of it, he was not a 'person in the United States' within the meaning of Title IX." The court emphasized that the language of Title IX clearly indicates that it applies only to individuals physically located within the U.S.
In addition to the Title IX ruling, the court addressed the equal protection claims against Uetz and Petren. The court found that sovereign immunity barred these claims because reinstatement would impose a financial burden on the state treasury, which is not permissible under the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that instatement actions cannot exploit the Ex parte Young exception, which allows for certain lawsuits against state officials.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving employment discrimination claims by U.S. citizens living abroad. It clarifies that Title IX protections are geographically limited and underscores the challenges faced by individuals who may experience discrimination while residing outside the United States. The decision may also influence how universities and other institutions approach hiring practices, particularly in relation to diversity and inclusion efforts.
Moving forward, it remains to be seen whether Charlton-Perkins will seek further legal recourse, such as an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's decision may also set a precedent for similar cases involving claims of discrimination based on gender and race in academic hiring processes.