Mahmoud, Ahmed v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
AHMED MAHMOUD,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN SYSTEM and
DENEEN WELLIK, in her individual and
official capacities,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-384-jdp
Plaintiff Ahmed Mahmoud was an assistant professor in the Cellular and Regenerative
Biology Department at the School of Medicine and Public Health of the University of
Wisconsin—Madison. 	In 	fall 	2023, 	the 	department’s 	executive 	committee, 	chaired 	by
defendant Deneen Wellik, voted to deny Mahmood tenure and terminate his employment with
the university. Mahmoud successfully appealed the decision and was granted tenure a year
later. He resigned the next day and took a position with another university.
Mahmoud contends that he was denied tenure because he is Egyptian, Arab, and
Muslim. He brings a claim of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
against the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, and claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause against Wellik. Mahmoud also
contends that defendants forced him to resign before his termination date, resulting in his
constructive discharge.
Defendants move for summary judgment. Dkt. 46. Mahmoud doesn’t have smoking
gun evidence of discrimination on the basis of his race, religion, or national origin. But he has
adduced evidence of several substantial irregularities in the initial evaluation of his tenure, and
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 1 of 28

2
that another comparable tenure candidate was treated more favorably. On the basis of this
evidence, a reasonable jury could find that defendants discriminated against Mahmoud when
they voted to deny him tenure. The court will deny defendants’ summary judgment motion on
his discrimination claim. But Mahmoud has not adduced evidence that would support a
reasonable jury finding on the constructive discharge claim. The court will dismiss that claim.
PRELIMINARY MOTIONS
Seven motions have been filed with this court that affect the scope of the materials that
court will consider in deciding defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court begins with
those.
First, Mahmoud’s motion for leave to amend his complaint is granted. Dkt. 28. As a
general rule, courts should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). But a “district court[] may deny leave to amend where there is a good reason to do
so, such as futility, undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith.” White v. Woods, 48 F.4th 853, 860
(7th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). Here, Mahmoud’s amended complaint seeks to dismiss his
claim for breach of contract, adds a claim for constructive discharge, and includes requests for
injunctive relief.
Defendants do not object to Mahmoud removing his breach of contract claim. But they
oppose adding a claim for constructive discharge and the requests for injunctive relief,
contending they are both futile and prejudicial. As for the constructive discharge claim,
defendants addressed that claim in their summary judgment motion, so there is no prejudice
in allowing amendment. The court need not decide whether the amended complaint states a
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 2 of 28

3
claim for constructive discharge because, even if it does, Mahmoud has not adduced evidence
sufficient to survive summary judgment on the claim.
As for the request for injunctive relief, Mahmoud probably didn’t need to plead it in
the first place: “Rule 54(c) provides that the prevailing party receives the relief to which it is
entitled, whether or not the pleadings have mentioned that relief.” Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble,
Inc., 887 F.3d 826, 828 (7th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, it is not clear what injunctive
would be available to Mahmoud: he’s taken a different job and does not allege that he wishes
to return to the University of Wisconsin, so most forms of injunctive relief would be moot. But
defendants do not contend that injunctive relief is categorically unavailable in this case, and
they do not explain why adding a request for injunctive relief would be futile. If Mahmoud
prevails in this lawsuit, the court will consider then what injunctive relief, if any, is appropriate.
Second, Mahmoud’s motion for leave to file a surreply, Dkt. 103, is granted as
unopposed.
Third, Mahmoud’s motion to strike the declaration of Dr. Timothy Kamp, the chair of
Mahmoud’s mentoring committee, as a “sham affidavit,” Dkt. 104, is denied as unnecessary.
Even if the court considers Kamp’s declaration, it does not affect the court’s decision on
defendants’ summary judgment motion. Even with that declaration, the court concludes that
there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on Mahmoud’s
denial-of-tenure claim.
Fourth, defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions, included in their response to
Mahmoud’s motion to strike, Dkt. 105, is denied. Defendants say that Mahmoud’s motion to
strike 	misrepresents 	Kamp’s 	declaration 	and 	that 	his 	summary 	judgment 	response
misrepresented facts. But the court cannot consider the Rule 11 motion because it does not
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 3 of 28

4
comply with Rule 11(c)(2), which requires such motions “be made separately from any other
motion” and prohibits their filing less than “21 days after service” on opposing counsel. See N.
Illinois Telecom, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., 850 F.3d 880, 884 (7th Cir. 2017) (Rule 11 motion
filed without serving opposing counsel twenty-one days in advance must be denied). Here,
defendants’ motion was filed with its response to Mahmoud’s motion to strike and without
prior service on Mahmoud’s counsel.
Fifth, Mahmoud’s motion for leave to file a first supplemental brief, Dkt. 112, is granted
as unopposed.
Sixth, Mahmoud’s motion for leave to file a second supplemental brief, Dkt. 127, is
denied. Mahmoud’s second supplemental brief cites new evidence and arguments regarding
another professor who was granted tenure. Mahmoud contends that the evidence supports his
claim that defendants denied him tenure because of his race, religion, and national origin. But
even without the supplemental evidence, the court concludes that defendants are not entitled
to summary judgment on the denial-of-tenure claim, so it is not necessary to consider the new
evidence.
Seventh, defendants’ motion to file a corrected response, Dkt. 142, to is denied. The
corrected response relates to Mahmoud’s motion to file a second supplemental brief. The court
is not considering the supplemental brief, so defendants’ corrected response is also unnecessary.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
The following facts are undisputed except where noted.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 4 of 28

5
A. The parties
Plaintiff Ahmed Mahmoud, is Egyptian, Arab, and Muslim. He started as a tenure-track
assistant professor in the Cellular and Regenerative Biology Department in 2017. His core
research is in developmental, stem cell, and regenerative biology using mice models.
Defendant Deneen Wellik became the department chair in December 2018. Wellik
presided over five or six tenure decisions as the department chair before considering
Mahmoud’s tenure application. Defendant Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System is the administrative body responsible for the management of all UW System schools,
including the University of Wisconsin—Madison.
B. Tenure process in the Cellular and Regenerative Biology Department
Assistant professors in the department are placed on a seven-year probationary period,
and they must obtain tenure by the end of year six unless they receive an extension.
Throughout this time, candidates for tenure are guided by a “mentoring committee.” The
primary responsibilities of the mentoring committee are to be readily accessible to the junior
faculty member to respond to questions regarding professional development, such as grant
funding, publications, and methods for gaining national recognition, and to provide feedback
regarding the junior faculty member’s progress. Generally, if the candidate receives tenure, he
or she is also promoted to the rank of associate professor.
As the tenure and promotion deadline approaches, assistant professors are tasked with
compiling their tenure dossier, which is comprised of three components: their CV; narrative
statements detailing their research, teaching, and service; and opinions about the candidate’s
work in research and teaching from senior faculty members at other institutions with
overlapping expertise. The parties refer to these opinions as “arm’s-length letters.” The decision
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 5 of 28

6
to solicit arm’s-length letters is subject to a vote by the executive committee, which is the
department’s 	governing 	body 	responsible 	for 	making 	tenure 	recommendations 	and 	is
comprised of all tenured faculty in the department.
After the arm’s-length letters are received, the executive committee reviews the
completed dossier and makes a tenure recommendation. If the committee votes in favor of the
candidate, his dossier is subsequently reviewed by the Dean of the Medical School and the
Biological Services Divisional Committee, then by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, and finally by the UW-System Board of Regents. If the committee votes
against 	the 	candidate, 	his 	dossier 	is 	not 	advanced, 	but 	the 	candidate 	may 	ask 	for
reconsideration by the department. If reconsideration is unsuccessful, the candidate may
appeal to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.
C. Mahmoud’s tenure application
1. 	Mentoring committee reviews
Timothy Kamp was the chair of Mahmoud’s mentoring committee. He drafted an
annual letter updating the department on his tenure progress. In Kamp’s letters, Mahmoud
consistently received positive feedback. In the early stages of his probationary period,
committee members were impressed with the growth of Mahmoud’s lab, recruitment of
promising trainees, and progress in establishing a plan for teaching. But as Mahmoud
approached his tenure deadline, the mentoring committee was concerned with Mahmoud’s
lab’s grant funding and that the lab had only produced two peer-reviewed publications. Despite
these concerns, the mentoring committee still remarked that Mahmoud had a strong research
program with adequate research in progress to address both concerns. In the final letter, Kemp
and the mentoring committee urged Mahmoud to finish at least two or three of his four
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 6 of 28

7
publications that were currently in their “final stage,” praised his successful mentoring, reviews
for teaching, and noted that he had contributed meaningfully to “service,” which consists of
activities that support the university, the profession, and the wider community.
2. 	Preparing Mahmoud’s materials
To prepare for the vote to solicit arm’s-length letters, Mahmoud requested feedback on
his CV and narrative statements, sending drafts to Wellik and Kamp. Wellik responded first,
explaining how Mahmoud should represent his lab’s responsibility for concept development
and design, data acquisition, analysis, and writing for his publications. After making these
changes and adding updates for a newly accepted paper, Mahmoud sent new drafts to Wellik
and Kamp. Wellik did not provide further feedback.
Kamp reviewed the updated draft, recommending that Mahmoud do the following: give
credit to collaborators if they helped with experiments and writing; delete references to himself
as the “senior” author when a more senior member of the department contributed; and delete
the statement that he was a “mentor to the other authors.” Dkt. 93-4, at 2–5. After
incorporating this feedback, Mahmoud sent drafts to Wellik and Kamp one more time. Kamp
provided some suggestions for Mahmoud’s research statement but remarked that the other
materials looked good. Soon after, the completed materials were sent to Wellik and posted for
faculty review in advance of the September vote.
3. 	The September meeting
The final step in completing Mahmoud’s dossier was for the executive committee to
approve soliciting arm’s-length letters at their vote on September 6, 2023. There were 15 (out
of 16) members of the executive committee present for the September meeting. Jeffery
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 7 of 28

8
Dilworth was not present for the meeting; however, Wellik allowed him to vote in advance by
email.
The executive committee went into closed session to vote on whether to advance
professor Junsu Kang’s completed tenure dossier and whether to solicit letters for Mahmoud’s
dossier. Kang’s vote was first and, by a show of hands, the executive committee unanimously
voted to advance his tenure dossier to the divisional committee. Next, the discussion turned to
Mahmoud. After a “very lengthy and highly participatory” discussion, the executive committee
used paper ballots and voted against requesting arm’s-length letters for Mahmoud, by a count
of 7 yes, 8 no, and 1 abstention. Dkt. 72-1, at 120. This was the first time the executive
committee had ever voted against seeking arm’s-length letters for a tenure candidate.
Five days later, Wellik emailed Mahmoud informing him of the results and the next
steps, including a “procedural vote” to officially non-renew his appointment with the
university. The email informed Mahmoud that he could request the reasons for the decision
and that he could request a reconsideration. Id. On October 4, the executive committee voted
not 	to 	renew 	Mahmoud’s 	appointment. 	That 	day, 	Mahmoud 	was 	informed 	that 	his
appointment at the university would end in June 2025. Mahmoud promptly requested the
reasons for the decision.
4. 	Written reasons for non-renewal
On October 25, 2023, the executive committee provided Mahmoud with a copy of the
reasons for the non-renewal of his probationary appointment. This letter was primarily drafted
by Wellik and summarizes the executive committee’s discussion during the September meeting,
broken down into the three “pillars” of academic performance: research, teaching/mentoring,
and service. Dkt. 51-3.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 8 of 28

9
As 	for 	research, 	the 	letter 	acknowledged 	that 	sophisticated 	mouse 	modeling
experiments, like those used by Mahmoud, take significant time to establish. However, the
committee was concerned about the following: (1) Mahmoud’s main project had progressed
slowly toward R01 funding, the most common research grant awarded by the National
Institutes of Health; (2) there had only been four senior-author publications from his lab on
three different research topics; (3) two publications came “in the ‘eleventh hour’ push at the
tenure 	deadline” 	involving 	collaboration 	with 	senior 	colleagues; 	and 	(4) 	his 	pace 	of
productivity.
As for teaching, the letter noted that Mahmoud was the co-director of a new course and
provided lectures in several other classes, describing the amount of teaching as “standard for
the department.” However, the letter also expressed concerns regarding low apparent effort in
preparing and updating teaching materials. As for mentoring, the committee praised Mahmoud
for the success of one post-doc student that had gone on to a tenure track position at another
university but expressed a concern that Mahmoud was not readily available to his mentees.
As for service, the letter notes that Mahmoud served on several department and
university committees and as a reviewer for journals and grants. However, the committee
considered this amount of service to be “below the average.” The letter also notes that service
is not a “major pillar of the tenure decision.”
5. 	Preparing for reconsideration
After 	receiving 	the 	reasons 	letter, 	Mahmoud 	requested 	reconsideration 	of 	his
non-renewal and began taking steps to address the executive committee’s stated reasons. This
included updating his CV to reflect the following: his fifth paper as the sole corresponding
author had been accepted for publication; the status of his first patent application had changed
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 9 of 28

10
from under consideration to issued; his work had been named a finalist for the WARF
Innovation Award; and professor Ying Ge, a member of the executive committee, was properly
listed a co-mentor for a shared PhD student. Additionally, Mahmoud met with his mentoring
committee again, allowing them to prepare a new letter that strongly supported his tenure
process moving forward and sought to address concerns raised in the reasons letter.
During this time, some executive committee members also discussed Mahmoud’s case.
Some discussed their view that the September vote had not been fair for Mahmoud, believing
Wellik withheld important context regarding Mahmoud’s accomplishments and that is was not
clear in advance of the meeting that the substance of Mahmoud’s tenure candidacy would be
discussed. Other professors raised new concerns with Mahmoud. In particular, Ge stated that
Mahmoud was making overstatements on his CV related to shared publications. Wellik
encouraged Ge to present this information during the reconsideration.
Nobody told Mahmoud about concerns that he was overstating his CV. Indeed, after
speaking with Kamp, Ge explicitly asked him not to discuss this feedback with Mahmoud,
citing a “concern[] that he will be very angry with [her]” and “worr[ies] about [her] safety, and
possibly [Wellik’s], given the recent incident at UNC.”1 Dkt. 87-42. Ge also connected
Mahmoud’s tenure case to the recent shooting at UNC in a conversation with Wellik.
6. 	The November meeting
The reconsideration meeting was held on November 29, 2023. Every member of the
executive committee attended the meeting except for Pamela Kreeger. However, she prepared
1 In August 2023, a Chinese associate professor at the University of North Carolina was shot
and killed by a Chinese graduate student in the chemistry department.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 10 of 28

11
a statement that was read during the meeting indicating that she would have voted yes instead
of no based on what she learned since the September meeting.
After a discussion on the reconsideration process, Mahmoud gave a presentation
addressing the reasons letter and answered a few follow-up questions. Afterward, the meeting
moved into closed session, during which Ge presented her concerns about overstatements in
Mahmoud’s CV, which were discussed at length. During the discussion, the committee
members questioned whether arm’s-length letters could address their concerns that Mahmoud
was not in his office enough and may be inflating his CV.
After the discussion concluded, the executive committee voted on paper ballots against
soliciting arm’s-length letters with 6 yes, 8 no, and 1 abstention.
D. Mahmoud’s appeal to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Mahmoud appealed to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Based on
its review of the materials and procedure used to evaluate Mahmoud’s tenure, the faculty
committee 	found 	that 	Mahmoud’s 	non-renewal 	was 	based 	to 	a 	significant 	degree 	on
unfounded, arbitrary, or irrelevant assumptions of fact and a procedural error. The committee
specifically noted that it was an error for the executive committee to treat the September vote
as a “decision on the merits of promoting Dr. Mahmoud rather than a more procedural vote to
obtain outside letters.” Id. at 2. Based on these findings, the faculty committee unanimously
voted that Mahmoud had been materially prejudiced and advised that an ad hoc de novo
committee evaluate Mahmoud’s record to determine whether to recommend that tenure be
granted.
The ad hoc committee voted on Mahmoud’s tenure on September 5, 2024. His dossier
included arm’s-length letters, updated narrative statements, and an updated CV. The ad hoc
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 11 of 28

12
committee also reviewed a negative performance letter, drafted by Wellik, and a rebuttal
drafted 	by 	Mahmoud. 	After 	reviewing 	these 	materials, 	the 	ad 	hoc 	committee 	voted
unanimously in favor of advancing Mahmoud’s tenure proceedings, advancing only his dossier
to the divisional committee, not including Wellik’s performance letter or Mahmoud’s rebuttal.
The divisional committee met on November 1, 2024, and reviewed Mahmoud’s dossier
and Wellik’s performance letter. After reviewing these materials, the divisional committee
voted to defer making a decision and requested supplemental information from the ad hoc
committee. After receiving responsive materials (including Mahmoud’s written rebuttal, a
statement 	from 	Wellik 	and 	Mahmoud’s 	mentoring 	committee, 	and 	information 	from
interviews with Mahmoud’s previous mentees) the divisional committee voted 8–0 to
recommend granting tenure.
On February 5, 2025, Mahmoud was promoted to Associate Professor with tenure. On
February 6, 2025, Mahmoud resigned.
Additional facts will be introduced where relevant to the analysis.
ANALYSIS
Mahmoud brings claims under Title VII against the Board and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
and 1983 and under the Equal Protection Clause against Wellik, contending that defendants
denied him tenure based on his race, religion, and national origin and forcing him to resign
early by creating a hostile work environment.
Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Mahmoud’s claims, on three grounds.
First, defendants contend that Mahmoud’s individual capacity claims against Wellik are barred
by sovereign immunity and for lack of personal involvement. Second, defendants contend that
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 12 of 28

13
no reasonable jury could find that any decisionmaker discriminated against him because of his
race, religion, or national origin. Third, defendants contend that no reasonable jury find that
Mahmoud was constructively discharged.
The court will grant summary judgment if the material facts are undisputed and
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court will
view the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and draw all
reasonable inferences in his favor. Lesiv v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 39 F.4th 903, 908 (7th Cir. 2022).
But it is Mahmoud’s burden to adduce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable jury a verdict
in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
A. Sovereign immunity and the claims against Wellik
Sovereign immunity is a privilege of the sovereign not to be sued without its consent
recognized by the Eleventh Amendment and it generally prohibits private parties from suing
states in federal court without their consent. See Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valcq, 16
F.4th 508, 520 (7th Cir. 2021); Gerlach v. Rokita, 95 F.4th 493, 498 (7th Cir. 2024). But
Congress has the power to abrogate sovereign immunity, which Congress did in enacting Title
VII. Nanda v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Illinois, 303 F.3d 817, 831 (7th Cir. 2002). Defendants do
not contend that sovereign immunity applies to Mahmoud’s Title VII claims against the Board.
But defendants seek to dismiss Mahmoud’s claims against Wellik in her individual capacity as
barred by sovereign immunity.
Mahmoud asserts the same two claims against Wellik as he does against the Board:
(1) Wellik discriminated against him in the tenure decision; and (2) Wellik constructively
discharged him. Mahmoud seeks damages against Wellik in her individual capacity and
injunctive 	relief 	against 	Wellik 	in 	her 	official 	capacity. 	Defendants 	do 	not 	challenge
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 13 of 28

14
Mahmoud’s official capacity claims on sovereign immunity grounds, so the court need not
address that issue.
Typically, state officials may be sued in their individual capacities without raising
sovereign immunity concerns. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991). However, sovereign
immunity may still bar these claims if they “demonstrably [have] the identical effect as [claims]
against the state.” Luder v. Endicott, 253 F.3d 1020, 1023 (7th Cir. 2001).
This court has recently discussed how sovereign immunity applies to cases in which a
state employee has sued a supervisor for conduct at the workplace under § 1981 and § 1983.
See Hoffman v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System, No. 23-cv-853-jdp, 2025 WL
1504376 (W.D. Wis. May 27, 2025), and Melgaard v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Nat. Res., No. 24-CV-
561-jdp, 2025 WL 3268370 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 24, 2025). In those cases, this court construed
Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2003), and Haynes v. Indiana University, 902 F.3d
724 (7th Cir. 2018), to stand for the following principle: “sovereign immunity bars a state-
employed plaintiff from bringing individual-capacity claims against state-employed supervisors
or coworkers who deprived him of rights, benefits, 	or opportunities arising from his
employment relationship with the state.” Melgaard, 2025 WL 3268370 at *4.
The court concludes that the denial-of-tenure claim is barred by sovereign immunity,
but the constructive discharge claim is not. The denial-of-tenure claim is foreclosed by Haynes,
902 F.3d at 732, because Mahmoud is seeking only the benefit of his employment relationship
with the state. But the constructive discharge claim is different. Mahmoud alleges that Wellik
created an environment in which Mahmoud was made to feel unwelcome. In other words,
Mahmoud alleges that Wellik personally mistreated him, not that Wellik denied him the
benefits of state employment.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 14 of 28

15
B. Denial-of-tenure claim
Under Title VII, it is “unlawful . . . for an employer . . . to discriminate against any
individual with respect to . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because 	of 	such 	individual’s 	race, 	color, 	religion, 	sex, 	or 	national 	origin.” 	42 	U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1). Mahmoud is alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and
religion, which are all protected characteristics under Title VII. The parties agree that a denial
of tenure relates to Mahmoud’s terms and conditions of employment.
The only dispute is causation: whether the Board denied Mahmoud tenure “because of”
his race, religion, or national origin. Mahmoud says he was. The Board says that it was a
combination of two other reasons: (1) Mahmoud overstated his credentials in his CV; and
(2) Mahmoud was too often absent from the department, which had a negative effect on his
productivity. 2
Mahmoud 	contends 	that 	he 	can 	prove 	causation 	in 	two 	ways: 	(1) 	under 	the
burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); and (2) with
evidence 	Wellik 	used 	the 	executive 	committee 	as 	a 	dupe 	to 	trigger 	a 	discriminatory
employment action, often called the “cat’s paw” theory in the case law. But the court is not
constrained by a particular evidentiary framework. As the court of appeals has explained, the
sole question the court must consider is whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence
to allow a reasonable jury to infer intentional discrimination because of 	a protected
2 Defendants didn’t discuss these reasons in their opening brief, raising the question whether
they forfeited any reliance on those issues for the purpose of their summary judgment motion.
But the court is granting Mahmoud’s motion to file a sur-reply in part to respond to those
reasons, so Mahmoud is not unfairly prejudiced. In any event, the outcome of the summary
judgment motion would be the same with or without consideration of those reasons.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 15 of 28

16
characteristic. Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 764–65 (7th Cir. 2016); David v.
Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, 846 F.3d 216, 224 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
The court concludes that Mahmoud has adduced three types of evidence that, considered
together, satisfy that standard: (1) defendants departed from their usual practice in considering
Mahmoud’s tenure application; (2) defendants’ stated reasons for denying tenure are pretexts;
and (3) defendants granted tenure to a similarly situated candidate.3
1. 	Departure from usual practice
The process for reviewing Mahmoud’s tenure application departed from the executive
committee’s usual practice in three ways. First, the committee chose not to solicit letters from
outside academics in Mahmoud’s field before deciding whether to grant tenure. It is undisputed
that the committee generally placed significant weight on arm’s-length letters when considering
tenure applications. Dkt. 104-1, Kamp Dep., at 26:14-20. It is also undisputed that the
committee had always solicited such letters in the past, without considering the merits of the
tenure application. Indeed, the department’s guidelines regarding tenure do not call for a
meeting to vote on promotion until letters are received. Dkt. 89-1, at 13. Defendants identify
no other instance in which they declined to solicit letters before voting on tenure.
Defendants identify no reason for departing from their usual practice. Instead, they say
that the executive committee always conducted a separate vote on soliciting letters before
3 Mahmoud also presented evidence of comments made by two executive committee members
which may have supported an inference that they hold a discriminatory bias toward individuals
who are Egyptian, Arab, or Muslim. These are arguably immaterial “stray comments.” See Joll
v. Valparaiso Cmty. Schs., 953 F.3d 923, 934 (7th Cir. 2020) But because Mahmoud’s other
evidence is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to his denial of tenure, the
court need not consider the statements for the purpose of defendants’ summary judgment
motion.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 16 of 28

17
voting on tenure. But that argument misses the point. Regardless of whether it was common
to hold a vote, defendants admit that they had voted to solicit letters for every other candidate
in the past, and they have adduced no evidence that previous votes were contingent on an
assessment of the candidate’s qualifications. Rather, the faculty committee found that the vote
to solicit letters was a routine, procedural step and a mere formality. A reasonable jury could
make the same finding.
Second, the executive committee generally voted on tenure by a show of hands. But in
Mahmoud’s case, the committee voted in secret, using paper ballots. Again, the committee had
never done this before, and defendants provide no coherent reason for why they made the
change for Mahmoud. Wellik said that they conducted a secret ballot “to ensure each
[committee] member could vote free of pressure from others.” Dkt. 61-36, at 2. But this does
not explain why Wellik was concerned about “pressure” in Mahmoud’s case but no one else’s.
One reasonable inference is that Wellik opposed Mahmoud’s tenure and believed that
committee members would feel freer to vote “no” on a secret ballot than if they had to publicly
identify their opposition.
Third, Wellik imposed stricter attendance rules on Mahmoud’s reconsideration vote.
Specifically, Kreeger wanted to participate in the reconsideration vote by video conference or
to vote absentee. Wellik knew at the time that Kreeger supported granting tenure to Mahmoud.
Dkt. 38-1. However, instead of allowing Kreeger to vote absentee, as she allowed Dilworth to
do during the September vote, she denied Kreeger’s requests, without explaining the difference
between these meetings. One reasonable inference is that Wellik wanted to exclude one of
Mahmoud’s supporters from the vote.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 17 of 28

18
“An employer’s unusual deviation from standard procedures can serve as circumstantial
evidence of discrimination.” See Baines v. Walgreen Co., 863 F.3d 656, 664 (7th Cir. 2017). As
discussed, there are three ways that the executive committee handled Mahmoud’s tenure
application differently from previous candidates, and each of the deviations potentially
prejudiced Mahmoud’s candidacy. A reasonable jury could infer that the committee treated
Mahmoud differently because of his race, national origin, or religion.
2. 	Pretext
A reasonable jury may infer discriminatory intent from evidence that the employer’s
stated reasons for an adverse employment action are pretextual: “Where . . . there is a question
of fact as to the believability of an employer’s purported reasons for an employment decision
. . . it suffices to defeat the employer’s summary judgment motion.” Greengrass v. Int’l Monetary
Sys. Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 487 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). In
this case, Mahmoud has adduced evidence that the Board’s asserted reasons for denying him
tenure are pretextual.
a. 	Overstatement of credentials
Defendants say that the denial of tenure was justified in part by concerns that
Mahmoud overstated his credentials in his CV. But the Board never told Mahmoud about this
reason: it was not included in the reasons letter provided by the Board and no committee
member otherwise brought it up to Mahmoud. “When evidence indicates an attempt to justify
a discharge after the fact, it can suggest a discriminatory motive.” Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims
Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866, 882 (7th Cir. 2016).
Defendants say that they gave Mahmoud notice of this concern when Kamp and Wellik
told him that he should correctly credit collaborators in his CV. But Kamp testified in his
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 18 of 28

19
deposition that his concerns regarding attribution were addressed before the September vote
against seeking arm’s-length letters. Dkt. 104-1, Kamp Dep., at 117:19-23. That testimony is
enough to create a factual dispute about whether Mahmoud was denied tenure because of
lingering concerns about his CV.
b. 	Lack of presence in the department and poor mentoring
Defendants contend that Mahmoud was excessively absent from the department, which
had a negative effect on his ability to mentor students.
The reasons letter identified a lack of service as a concern, but a reasonable jury could
find that absences from the department did not actually motivate the executive committee’s
decision. The letter itself stated that department engagement was not “a major pillar of the
tenure decision.” Dkt. 51-3, at 2. Defendants identify only two committee members who
expressed a concern about this issue, Wellik and Dilworth. But Wellik also stated that
Mahmoud’s teaching and research were strong enough that “perhaps [his low service] does not
matter at all.” See Dkt. 70-14, at 2–3. And Dilworth voted in favor of Mahmoud’s tenure, so
Dilworth’s personal concerns were unlikely to have influenced the decision. A reasonable jury
could infer that Mahmoud’s alleged absences from the department did not play a part in the
denial-of-tenure based on the absence of any evidence in the letter or statements from
committee members that the issue was important to them.
Regarding mentorship, defendants say that one of Mahmoud’s graduate students
complained about her time working in Mahmoud’s lab, arguing that it is reasonable to infer
that this frustration stemmed from working in a lab without guidance from Mahmoud. But it
is undisputed that, under Mahmoud’s mentorship, this student went on to complete her PhD
and went on to start a post-doctorate position at another university, something the executive
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 19 of 28

20
committee considers positive. Dkt. 33, Wellik Dep., at 58:5–24. Additionally, it is undisputed
that other graduate trainees found that they were able to thrive under plaintiff’s mentorship.
Dkt. 96-1, at 10–14. Defendants do not explain why the complaint of one student who was
ultimately successful would be a significant factor in a professor’s tenure candidacy. A
reasonable jury could find the purported problems with Mahmoud’s mentoring were pretextual.
3. 	More favorable treatment of similarly situated tenure candidates
If an employer gives more favorable treatment to similarly situated employees who are
not members of the plaintiff’s protected class, that is compelling evidence of discrimination.
See Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699, 708–09 (7th Cir. 2013). After all, “[t]he critical issue
[in a discrimination case] is whether members of one [protected group] are exposed to
disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of [an]other [group]
are not exposed.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998). So if a
plaintiff can show that other employees without relevant differences received better treatment
than he did, that is enough to support a finding that the employer treated him less favorably
because of the protected characteristic. See Prochaska v. Menard, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 710, 720
(W.D. Wis. 2011).
The parties dispute whether Mahmoud is similarly situated to Junsu Kang and Barak
Blum, two professors who received tenure in UW’s Cellular and Regenerative Biology
Department while Wellik served as chair. Neither Kang nor Blum is Egyptian, Arabic, or
Muslim. Because the executive committee members that considered Kang and Mahmoud’s
tenure applications were identical and “the similarly situated analysis does not require
numerosity, the plaintiff need offer evidence as to only one similarly situated comparator,”
Eaton v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 657 F.3d 551, 556 (7th Cir. 2011), the court will focus on Kang.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 20 of 28

21
Employees are similarly situated if they are the same in all relevant respects; which
respects are relevant depend on the facts of the case. Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d
387, 405 (7th Cir. 2007). The key question is whether there are “confounding variables” that
make it unreasonable to infer that the two employees should have been treated the same way.
Id.
Defendants do not dispute that Kang and Mahmoud are similar in many respects. The
key dispute is whether Kang and Mahmoud had similar qualifications.
The parties dispute three threshold issues regarding Kang and Mahmoud’s relative
qualifications. First, defendants contend that Mahmoud cannot rely on more favorable
treatment that Kang received unless Mahmoud was clearly more qualified than Kang. Dkt.
101, at 37–38. Defendants cite a district court case, Xi v. Trs. of Purdue Unviersity, No. 4:23-
CV-88-PPS, 2025 WL 2603926 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2025) that followed Millbrook v. IBP, Inc.,
280 F.3d 1169, 1176 (7th Cir. 2002), which held that “evidence of the applicants’ competing
qualifications does not constitute evidence of pretext unless those differences are so favorable
to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment
that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue.” Id. at 1179 (internal
quotations omitted). Defendants’ reliance on the principle in Millbrook is misplaced. In
Millbrook, the plaintiff was a black employee contending that he should have received a
promotion that instead went to a white employee. In a situation in which there is only one
position, it makes sense that the plaintiff would have to present evidence that he was clearly
more qualified than his competitor to raise an inference of discriminatory intent (in the absence
of other evidence). But defendants do not contend that Kang and Mahmoud were competing
for the same position. Rather, both of them could have obtained tenure if they were both
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 21 of 28

22
deemed to be qualified. So the question is simply whether Kang and Mahmoud were similarly
situated, not whether Mahmoud was clearly more qualified than Kang.
Second, Mahmoud contends that the court should consider all of his accomplishments
through his successful administrative appeal. But defendants could not have considered
qualifications that Mahmoud had not yet acquired at the time of their decision, so those
qualifications are not relevant to proving discrimination. See Zayas v. Rockford Mem’l Hosp., 740
F.3d 	1154, 	1158 	(7th 	Cir. 	2014). 	So, 	in 	comparing 	Mahmoud 	and 	Kang’s 	relative
qualifications, the court will only consider qualifications each candidate had at the time of their
tenure decisions.
Third, Mahmoud relies on the export report of Laurie Boyer, a tenured professor in the
Biology department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to show that he was at least
as qualified as Kang. Dkt. 80. It is not clear whether an expert report is needed or helpful in
this context. Regardless, the expert relied on the qualifications Mahmoud had at the time of
his successful administrative appeal rather than at the time of the tenure decision, so the court
did not consider the report.
A reasonable jury could find that Mahmoud and Kang were similarly qualified in
research and teaching, which, according to defendants, are the primary considerations for a
tenure decision. Dkt. 33, Wellik Dep., at 33:6-10. As for research productivity, the university
focuses on the number and quality of publications, along with the level of the tenure
candidate’s contribution to the publication, and the funding backing the applicant’s research.
Kang had three sole corresponding and one co-corresponding author publications; Mahmoud
had four sole corresponding publications at the time of the September vote and five at the time
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 22 of 28

23
of his reconsideration. 4 One of Mahmoud’s publications was in Circulation, a leading peer-
reviewed journal in cardiovascular research. And, the university filed two patent applications
in conjunction with two different lines of Mahmoud’s research, a feat Kamp described as
“exceptional.” Dkt. 104-1, Kamp Dep., at 34:13–23. None of Kang’s publications from his
probationary period were published in as significant of a journal or resulted in a patent
application. As for research funding, both Mahmoud and Kang accumulated funding awards of
roughly $2.3 million, with Mahmoud having a slight edge.
As for teaching and mentorship, the department mostly cares about time spent lecturing
in classes and its quality and mentorship of postdoctoral fellows and graduate students toward
independent scientific careers. Dkt. 104-1, Kamp Dep., at 22:2-23:13. Mahmoud had 20
lecture hours and Kang had 25. But Mahmoud had more demonstrated mentorship: two of his
mentees had completed a doctorate or post-doctorate and continued their scientific careers at
other universities, but Kang had no mentees who completed either program.
Defendants do not dispute that Mahmoud and Kang were similarly situated in the
metrics described above. But they say that the two candidates were different in two other
relevant respects.
First, defendants contend that Kang had better service contributions, which relate to
activities that faculty members undertake to support the institution, their profession, and the
wider 	community, 	beyond 	their 	responsibilities 	of 	research 	and 	teaching. 	However, 	a
4 A tenure candidate is a “corresponding author” if the research for the publication was
conducted and led by the candidate’s laboratory. He is a “co-corresponding author” if the work
was shared equally with another lab. Mahmoud had an additional sole corresponding
publication at the time of both votes, but it was absent from his CV, so it is not clear whether
the committee was aware of it. Regardless of whether that publication is considered, Mahmoud
had at least as many publications as Kang.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 23 of 28

24
reasonable jury could disagree. As an initial matter, Wellik testified that a candidate’s service
“isn’t a formal consideration for moving forward,” Dkt. 33 (Wellik Dep. 33:15–16), raising the
question 	whether 	defendants 	actually 	considered 	any 	differences 	between 	Kang 	and
Mahmoud’s service. In any event, defendants do not explain why Kang’s service was more
impressive than Mahmoud’s. Instead, they merely list the service activities identified in his CV.
Dkt. 51-7, at 14–16. But both Mahmoud and Kang’s CVs include similar types of service,
including participating on and chairing committees in the department, in other departments,
and for the university; working with university admissions; working as an ad hoc reviewer for
scientific journals; and working as grant reviewers. Dkt. 87-26, at 16–17. Accordingly, a
reasonable jury could find that Kang and Mahmoud had similar records of service.
Second, defendants contend that Kang had superior funding because he received an
R01 grant, the most common research grant from the National Institute for Health, for a
second line of research. However, a reasonable jury could find that is not a relevant difference,
for three reasons: (1) the executive committee did not identify a lack of funding in the reasons
letter as a reason for denying tenure; in fact, the committee described Mahmoud’s lab as “well
funded,” Dkt. 33-32, at 2; (2) Mahmoud’s funding supported three independent research
topics, Dkt. 52-3, at 1, one more than Kang; and (3) a reasonable jury could infer that that the
source of Kang’s second line of funding is not a meaningful distinction because guidance from
the university to tenure candidates states that “other types of significant research funding []
can be accepted in lieu of the R01.” Dkt. 89-15, at 7. And, a member of Mahmoud’s ad hoc
committee described his department of defense funding as “kind of like an R01 equivalent.”
See Dkt. 64-1, at 2–3. This indicates that a reasonable jury could also conclude that these
funding sources are not meaningfully different. Accordingly, drawing all reasonable inferences
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 24 of 28

25
in Mahmoud’s favor, a jury could find that funding was not a meaningful distinction between
Kang and Mahmoud.
4. 	Conclusion
Mahmoud does not have “smoking gun” evidence that defendants discriminated against
him because of his race, national origin, or religion. Almost none of the evidence he cites
directly relates to any of those characteristics. But that type of evidence is rare. A plaintiff can
rely on circumstantial as well as direct evidence of discrimination. In this case, Mahmoud has
adduced evidence that defendants approved tenure for a similarly situated candidate, that
defendants departed from their usual tenure process in multiple ways that potentially
prejudiced Mahmood, and that defendants’ stated reasons for denying tenure to Mahmood are
pretextual. From this, a reasonable jury could find that defendants discriminated against
Mahmoud.
C. Constructive Discharge
Mahmoud also claims that he was constructively discharged. Under Title VII and
§ 1983, constructive discharge constitutes an adverse employment action, and the standard is
the same under both laws. Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 143 (2004); Levenstein v.
Salafsky, 414 F.3d 767, 774 (7th Cir. 2005). The Seventh Circuit has recognized two forms of
constructive discharge: (1) an employer acts in a manner so as to have communicated to a
reasonable employee that they will be terminated, and the plaintiff employee resigns and (2) a
plaintiff resigns due to discriminatory harassment. Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc., 621 F.3d
673, 679–80 (7th Cir. 2010). Mahmoud contends that he can prove this claim both ways.
Under the first theory, Mahmoud argues that defendants communicated to him in their
October 2023 letter that his appointment with the university would end in June 2025. But at
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 25 of 28

26
the time Mahmoud quit, the executive committee’s decision had been overturned, and he had
been granted tenure. So there was no basis at that point for Mahmoud to believe that his
termination was imminent.
Under the second form of constructive discharge, plaintiffs must show that the
employer made the employee’s working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee
would be forced to resign. Roby v. CWI, Inc., 579 F.3d 779, 785–86 (7th Cir. 2009). The
plaintiff must “show a more egregious situation than a hostile work environment because an
employee is normally expected to continue working while seeking redress.” Id.
To support this theory, Mahmoud cites his own testimony that colleagues stopped
speaking with him and students did not want to work with him because “[f]aculty within the
department, influenced by Wellik, began circulating a narrative that Mahmoud was ‘going to
be very angry and might hurt them.’” Dkt. 77, at 72 (citing Dkt. 75, ¶¶ 81–82). Mahmoud
also says that Wellik tried to sabotage his administrative appeal by submitting a performance
letter to the ad hoc review committee that included false information about his teaching
practices.
This claim fails for two main reasons. First, Mahmoud cites no foundation of personal
knowledge for his belief that Wellik influenced faculty and students to stop speaking or
working with him, and he provides no details about the faculty or students who refused to
interact with him. The evidence shows that Mahmoud continued working with his students
and that other faculty members offered to help him find a different position at the university
and to address any prejudice caused by Wellik’s performance letter.
Second, the type of conduct that Mahmoud alleges is not severe or pervasive enough to
support a hostile work environment claim, let alone a claim for constructive discharge.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 26 of 28

27
Mahmoud has not adduced evidence that he was physically or sexually harassed, that anyone
threatened him, that the university ignored complaints of mistreatment, or that he was
otherwise prevented from doing his job. See Chapin, 621 F.3d at 679–80; Roby, 579 F.3d 779,
785–86; Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781, 790 (7th Cir. 2007). Being given the
cold shoulder and receiving a bad performance review do not amount to working conditions so
intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel forced to resign. The court of appeals has
rejected constructive discharge claims involving much more serious allegations. See Levenstein v.
Salafsky, 414 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2005) (no constructive discharge for professor who was
suspended pending a sexual harassment investigation, temporarily assigned off campus for
almost a year, removed as department head, and given demeaning tasks).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Mahmoud’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, Dkt. 28, is GRANTED.
2. 	Mahmoud’s motion to file a surreply, Dkt. 103, is GRANTED.
3. 	Mahmoud’s motion to strike the declaration of Timothy Kamp, Dkt. 104, is
DENIED.
4. 	Defendants’ motion for sanctions, Dkt. 105, is DENIED.
5. 	Mahmoud’s motion to file a first supplemental brief, Dkt. 112, is GRANTED.
6. 	Mahmoud’s motion to file a second supplemental brief, Dkt. 127, is DENIED.
7. 	Defendants’ motion to file a corrected brief in response to Mahmoud’s second
supplemental brief, Dkt. 142, is DENIED.
8. 	Defendants’ 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment, 	Dkt 	46, 	is 	GRANTED 	as 	to
Mahmoud’s claims against Wellik in her individual capacity and as to his claims for
constructive discharge. The motion is DENIED as to his Title VII denial-of-tenure
claim.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 27 of 28

28
9. 	The claims against defendant Deneen Wellik in her individual capacity and
Mahmoud’s claim for constructive discharge against Wellik are DISMISSED.
Mahmoud 	may 	proceed 	against 	Wellik 	in 	her 	official 	capacity 	on 	his
denial-of-tenure claim.
Entered January 29, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 151 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 28 of 28