UA Professor Sues Board Of Regents, Alleging DEI Retaliation And Committee Blacklisting

UA Professor Sues Board Of Regents, Alleging DEI Retaliation And Committee Blacklisting

By Matthew Holloway |

University of Arizona (UA) English professor Dr. Matthew Abraham has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was blacklisted from key faculty-governance committees after raising concerns about DEI-driven hiring practices within his department. The complaint, filed Nov. 25 in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, names the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) as the sole defendant and alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Abraham, a tenured faculty member, argues that the university systematically excluded him from participation in faculty oversight bodies, including the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) and the English Department’s Academic Program Review Committee (APR), after he questioned policies, which he believed to be rooted in racial preferences, through legally protected internal and administrative channels.

According to filings and documentation released by the Liberty Justice Center, Abraham’s concerns date back several years, culminating in multiple internal grievances, public records requests, and a 2022 complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC initially dismissed the complaint but later issued a right-to-sue letter in August 2025, clearing the way for the federal lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, Dr. Abraham alleges that UA administrators and faculty leaders applied “confidential” criteria when selecting committee members, criteria he argues were influenced by DEI ideology and were used to sideline dissenting faculty.

Slides and internal correspondence referenced in the lawsuit reportedly categorized certain faculty members as “problematic,” “not appropriate,” or otherwise unfavored for committee roles. Abraham says those labels stemmed directly from his vocal opposition to using race as a factor in hiring or governance.

“University officials cannot blacklist a professor because he dared to question race-based hiring practices,” said Ángel J. Valencia, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, in a press release. “Retaliation for speaking out about unlawful discrimination is itself illegal. We seek to restore lawful, transparent standards for committee service, to remove the stigma the University has placed on Dr. Abraham, and to hold the University accountable for their unlawful actions.”

Abraham’s lawsuit seeks several remedies, according to the Liberty Justice Center, including:

  • Removal of “stigmatizing” labels placed in faculty records
  • Clear, viewpoint-neutral criteria for determining eligibility for governance committees
  • An injunction barring ABOR and UA from using race-based or DEI-based selection practices in committee assignments
  • Restoration of Abraham’s participation rights within faculty governance

The University of Arizona declined comment, citing “what is an active legal matter,” according to The Center Square.

Dr. Abraham’s lawsuit comes as public universities nationwide face increasing scrutiny over the role of DEI in hiring, admissions, and internal governance. Arizona’s public higher-education system has been under heightened legal and political pressure in the past year, as previously reported by AZ Free News.

If Abraham prevails, even just by forcing broader disclosure of committee-selection records, the case could become a significant test of how DEI principles intersect with federal civil rights protections and the speech rights of public employees.

The Board of Regents has not yet filed a response in federal court as of this report.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Goldwater Institute Sues EEOC, Demanding Transparency In $15 Million Case Against Meathead Movers

Goldwater Institute Sues EEOC, Demanding Transparency In $15 Million Case Against Meathead Movers

By Jonathan Eberle |

The Goldwater Institute has filed a federal lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), demanding answers about an ongoing government case targeting a California-based moving company with a $15 million fine for alleged age discrimination.

At the center of the dispute is Meathead Movers, a family-owned business founded in 1997. The company has grown into California’s largest independently owned moving company, employing more than 300 workers. Its business model emphasizes physical endurance and customer service, with employees jogging to and from trucks when not carrying furniture.

The EEOC launched an investigation into Meathead Movers in 2017, accusing the company of discriminating against older applicants and using marketing materials that allegedly promote age bias. The case is unusual because it is an “agency-initiated” lawsuit—meaning the EEOC filed it without an official complaint from an alleged victim. The EEOC only pursues a small number of such cases each year.

According to the Goldwater Institute, that lack of a public complaint is precisely why the group is now suing the federal government. In March, the Institute submitted a public records request asking the EEOC to disclose whether any individuals had actually filed complaints against Meathead Movers and whether similar actions had been taken against other companies. The EEOC denied the request, citing privacy concerns.

The Goldwater Institute argues that the refusal to disclose this information violates federal transparency laws. “Privacy is for individuals, not government agencies,” the Goldwater said in a statement. “Transparency is a legal requirement, especially when taxpayer-funded agencies wield their power against private businesses.”

Critics of the EEOC’s case say the lawsuit defies common sense. Moving companies, by nature, require employees capable of lifting heavy furniture and working long hours in physically demanding conditions. The Goldwater Institute points out that Meathead Movers has employed workers of all ages and argues there is no evidence of systemic discrimination.

“This isn’t just about one company,” said a spokesperson for the Goldwater Institute. “If the government can pick a successful business, launch a multimillion-dollar enforcement action without an actual complaint, and then refuse to explain why, it sets a dangerous precedent for small businesses everywhere.”

As the lawsuit moves forward, the Goldwater Institute says it will continue to press for the release of records, arguing that public accountability is at stake.

Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.