The case of C.W. Park, a former professor of the University of Southern California (USC) is a rather complicated one which sheds light on discrimination and retaliation. Filing it in the Court of Los Angeles in the end of 2023 the former employee Park stated her case being discriminated against and fired due to her race and gender as well as a retaliation for reporting about the biases she witnessed at USC.
Overview of the Lawsuit
Another professor fired by USC C.W. Park believes that the termination was based on discriminatory actions. According to the suit, he was discriminated against in regard to race and gender by the University since he is an Asian American male compared to other professors of other origins and gender. His lawsuit alleges that he was let go for performance issues as is supposedly USC’s explanation but this lawsuit is about race and gender discrimination.
However Park also avers that these claims were the cause of retaliation as he lost his job in T-Mobile as a result and that is another part of this case.
USC’s Defense
Consequently, USC strongly dismisses all the allegations that Park has leveled against it. Based on the outcome of the internal investigation and the human resource records the university claims that Park was fired for poor performance especially in teaching and utter inability to meet the expectations of the students. As for the USC explanation the company claims that they fired him because of poor performance and not due to his race or gender.
Similarly, USC has also made a motion to dismiss the case that Park has filed saying it lacked legal facts and merits. As for Park the university stated that its claims are hypothetical and they claimed that no unlawful retaliation or discrimination happened. Thus USC has submitted it wanted to show that Park was fired because of his poor performances and not for prejudice.
Legal Questions at Stake
Some of the legal issues of concern in Park’s lawsuit include whether the firing was in violation of the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII and whether or not discrimination based on race or gender was a factor that led to his termination. As for the second element of retaliation claim, Park has to demonstrate that his termination resulted from his exercise of protected activity which is opposing discrimination. In other words for his discrimination claims Park has to provide evidence that he was fired under circumstances that involve race or gender discrimination on the part of USC but not for legitimate reasons as USC may have them.
If the claims mentioned above can be backed up with adequate evidence by Park then the court may grant the case progress.
Current Status of the Case
The class action lawsuit was initiated in November of 2023 thus it is still a rather new case. Nevertheless, in December 2023 USC filed a motion to dismiss, to which we look forward to a hearing in February 2024. If the judge agrees that Park’s allegations are adequate then the case will transpire to discovery where both parties come up with evidence & witnesses. The time to resolve may be through 2025 assuming the case is dismissed, settled or tried.
Broader Implications for Higher Education
Some lessons regarding discrimination and institutional responsibility can be drawn from the case of Park suing USC on grounds of unfair dismissal. The USC has been involved in similar cases in the past concerning the negligence in dealing with misconduct cases that are likely to worsen off due to this case. Such a lawsuit if pursued can spur morphed alterations in the manner that universities handle discrimination/retaliation complaints.
This case is also being closely watched by student advocacy groups, as it may set a precedent for how universities handle civil rights violations in the future.
Conclusion
The C.W. Park USC lawsuit deals with some of the severest discrimination and retaliation related allegations. While Park strives to explain to the court that his dismissal was racially and sexually discriminative USC argues it was on merit. The case could have ramifications for other institutions since universities have not been very quick on how to address discrimination especially because the legal process will resume in 2024.