Judge Rachel Bloomekatz, who was nominated by President Biden to the Sixth Circuit court of appeals, wrote a 2-1 opinion that reversed a lower court and directed that a Chinese immigrant’s sexual harassment claim should go to a jury. The decision also vacated a trial court holding in favor of the professor who committed the harassment and stated that the claim against him should be retried/ George W. Bush judge Raymond Kethledge agreed with Bloomekatz, while Trump Judge Chad Readler dissented. The August 2024 decision was in Huang v Ohio State University.
What happened in this case?
Meng Huang came to Ohio from China to start studying and working in engineering at Ohio State University in 2014. She was heavily recruited by Giorgio Rizzoni, a tenured professor in engineering who became her Phd advisor. At his urging, she also became a Graduate Research Associate (GRA) a paid position with a salary that he enhanced. At various points, Huang was administratively referred to as a “student” rather than an “employee”, but this did not affect her pay and responsibilities.
According to the complaint she later filed, ‘from the moment” she met him and throughout her 3 ½ years at Ohio State, Rizzoli “subjected her to unwanted touching of an increasingly sexual nature.” For example, during meetings alone and while driving together, he would often “grab and hold her hands, shoulders and waist in an affectionate but highly inappropriate and uncomfortable manner.” Once, at a dinner alone, Rizzoli “rubbed her thighs through her dress,” and as she began to pull away, he stated “Meng, I pay your stipend. You better listen to me.” Such incidents of an increasingly sexual nature continued, along with threats by Rizzoli to reduce or discontinue her stipend or take other action if she did not comply.
After three years during which Huang attempted to continue her program and dodge Rizzoni, he retaliated by pushing the premature scheduling of her Phd exam, which she contended he “rigged’ by influencing the faculty who gave the exam. She failed the test and Rizzoli refused to allow her to retake it, both “unusual” at OSU. She sought advice and then complained about the sexual harassment she had endured. OSU assigned her to another advisor, and she then successfully completed her Phd. OSU investigated Rizzoli but claimed it did not have enough evidence against him and he resumed his position.
Huang then sued both OSU and Rizzoni in federal court. The district judge granted summary judgment for OSU, claiming that she was a “student” and not an “employee” so that Title VII sexual harassment rules did not apply. The case against Rizzoni went to trial, but led to a jury verdict in his favor after a series of rulings that excluded important evidence that she wanted to present. Huang appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Judge Bloomekatz and the Sixth Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Bloomekatz wrote a 2-1 opinion that reversed both judgments against Huang. She ruled that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the claims against OSU so that they should be resolved at a trial. She also held that the court committed significant legal errors during the trial against Rizzoli so that the case against him should be retried.
The primary error made by the lower court concerning the OSU case was his ruling that Huang was a student and not an employee, so that Title VII rules against sexual harassment did not apply. The fact that OSU classified Huang as a “student” during part of the time she was there, Bloomekatz explained, “does not disqualify her from ‘employee’ status under Title VII.” Instead, Bloomekatz continued, past precedent and the record in the case made clear that there was “a genuine dispute of material fact” as to whether she was an employee as well as a student. The record similarly demonstrated, Bloomekatz went on, that Huang had “established disputes of material fact” as to whether she had suffered from sexual harassment for which OSU was liable, These questions, Bloomekatz ruled, must be resolved by a jury trial.
As to the jury trial against Rizzoli, Bloomekatz wrote that the lower court had committed serious errors in excluding evidence of his “alleged manipulation, coercion and influence” as not relevant during the phase of the proceeding concerning whether he was liable. “The district court abused its discretion,” she explained, “and because its narrow view of relevancy permeated the trial, Huang is enetitled to a new trial” against Rizzoli.
Judge Blommekatz’s 2-1 opinion is obviously important to Meng Huang and her quest for justice against OSU and Rizzoli for the sexual harassment she suffered. The ruling also sets important precedent concerning the handling of sexual harassment cases, especially as to whether students can also be employees. This is particularly true in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.