Sanja Tomasevic v. Arizona State University, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled on Defendants Arizona State University and Arizona Board of Regents’ motion to dismiss Sanja Tomasevic’s Second Amended Complaint. The court allowed claims for Title VII gender discrimination based on termination and pay discrimination to proceed, while dismissing hostile work environment and negligent discrimination claims with prejudice and retaliation without prejudice. The court granted leave to amend the retaliation claim by April 23, 2026.

Holdings

1. The retaliation and disparate-treatment claims were reasonably related to Plaintiff's EEOC charge and were administratively exhausted.
2. The hostile-work-environment claim was not exhausted because it was not reasonably related to the EEOC charge.
3. The termination-based gender-discrimination claim was timely, while claims based on the 2021 meeting and restrictions on asking players to return early in 2021 and 2022 were untimely.
4. Plaintiff plausibly pleaded gender discrimination based on her termination, so the claim survives the motion to dismiss.
5. Plaintiff plausibly pleaded a Title VII pay-discrimination claim based on allegations that her less-experienced male replacement was paid approximately $30,000 more for the same head-coach position.
6. Plaintiff failed to state a retaliation claim because she did not allege that she engaged in protected activity or that such activity caused her termination.
7. The negligent-discrimination claim was dismissed because Plaintiff did not identify a cognizable legal theory or authority recognizing such a claim under Title VII.
8. The hostile-work-environment and negligent-discrimination claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, while the retaliation claim was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Title VII retaliation claim was administratively exhausted and plausibly pleaded.
2. Whether the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim was reasonably related to the allegations in Plaintiff's EEOC charge and therefore exhausted.
3. Whether Title VII gender-discrimination allegations based on Plaintiff's termination were timely and sufficiently pleaded without identifying a fully established comparator at the pleading stage.
4. Whether Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a Title VII pay-discrimination claim based on the higher salary paid to her male replacement.
5. Whether Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for negligent discrimination under Title VII.
6. Whether dismissed claims should be dismissed with prejudice or with leave to amend.

Disposition

other