Credit: Penn State Abington.
A former Penn State writing instructor has not demonstrated that the university retaliated against him for speaking out against anti-racism initiatives, according to a recent federal court ruling.
Zack De Piero, who is White, failed to provide sufficient evidence that his dismissal was tied to complaints he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Penn State's Affirmative Action Office, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Penn State on the remaining retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Judge Beetlestone stated that no reasonable jury could conclude the university took any adverse employment action against De Piero in response to his complaints. “He was not fired for opposing anti-racism discourse,” she wrote, emphasizing that his job duties and benefits remained unchanged after the complaints. In fact, Penn State renewed his contract for the 2022 academic year and awarded him a raise.
De Piero alleged that over a span of three and a half years, he was subjected to roughly a dozen discussions and training sessions focused on anti-racism and White privilege while working at the university’s Abington campus. He also claimed to have witnessed discriminatory comments during university events, including a town hall meeting and a guest lecture.
One point of contention for De Piero was a training video titled “White Teachers Are a Problem.” He expressed discomfort with the content but was told by an affirmative action officer that the remarks were not meant to be personal and that he was not individually accountable for the actions of White people as a group.
In a prior ruling from March, Beetlestone dismissed De Piero’s claims that he endured a hostile work environment, but allowed his retaliation allegations to proceed. Those claims targeted five university officials, including leaders from the diversity and affirmative action offices.
De Piero argued that seven adverse actions were taken against him in response to his formal complaints, such as allegedly being misrepresented by the writing program coordinator to trigger disciplinary measures. He also accused the affirmative action office of supporting what he described as a false complaint, which included claims—never raised before—that he made threatening gestures.
However, the court found that De Piero failed to provide evidence supporting any of these accusations. He cited no documentation backing the allegation of dishonesty, and his references to the supposed false complaint did not demonstrate that it contained fabricated or unprecedented claims, Beetlestone concluded.
De Piero was represented by Allen Harris PLLC, while Saul Ewing LLP defended Penn State and the individual defendants.
The case is De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 2:23-cv-02281, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The opinion was issued on April 16, 2025.
