Case Background
Dr. Haiying Huang sued the University of Texas at Arlington under Title VII. She alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin. She also alleged retaliation after engaging in protected activity.
Huang worked in UTA’s Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department. UTA hired her as an assistant professor on August 1, 2006. She later became an associate professor with tenure and then a full professor. She became Associate Chair on September 1, 2022.
The dispute centered on her work as Associate Chair and her interactions with department faculty and administrators. Huang alleged that colleagues challenged her authority and that administrators responded differently to her complaints.
The record also showed that Huang filed an EEOC charge on November 27, 2024. The EEOC issued a Determination and Notice of Suit Rights on December 20, 2024.
Cause
Huang’s allegations arose from disputes within the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department.
She alleged that faculty members repeatedly undermined her authority after she became Associate Chair. One dispute involved meetings of the Mechanics Technical Disciplinary Committee. Huang said Associate Professor Stefan Dancila repeatedly interrupted her during a September 7, 2022 meeting.
Huang later raised concerns about faculty workload and committee operations. She also alleged that administrators removed her from leadership responsibilities and assigned her additional work.
The dispute escalated in early 2024. Huang alleged that Department Chair Erian Armanios criticized her performance and indicated that he intended to part ways with her. She alleged that Armanios removed her as Associate Chair without further notice on March 21, 2024.
Huang also alleged that UTA later investigated her complaints. She challenged the fairness of those investigations and continued to raise discrimination and retaliation concerns.
Injury
Huang alleged that the workplace conduct affected both her employment and her personal well-being.
She claimed that the removal from the Associate Chair position interfered with her employment and career opportunities. She also alleged that UTA’s actions caused financial losses.
The complaint described emotional injuries that included humiliation, embarrassment, stress, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and emotional distress.
Huang also alleged that UTA’s conduct substantially interfered with her employment. She claimed that the alleged discrimination and retaliation affected her professional standing and leadership responsibilities.
Damages
Huang sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial. She requested compensation for all monetary and economic harm caused by UTA’s alleged conduct.
She also sought compensation for non-monetary and compensatory harm. The complaint specifically identified mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, stress, anxiety, emotional pain, and emotional distress.
Huang further sought damages for any other monetary or non-monetary losses she suffered. She requested prejudgment interest on both her economic and non-economic damages.
In addition, she requested attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and other costs and disbursements. She also requested any other relief the Court considered just, proper, and equitable.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Haiying Huang.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Frank W. Hill | Ian G. Klein | Mark D. Siegmund [Terminated: 04/17/2026] | Michael P. Hilferty [Terminated: 04/17/2026] | Tuba J. Farooqui [Terminated: 04/17/2026] | William D. Ellerman [Terminated: 04/17/2026]
Defendant(s): University of Texas at Arlington.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Stephanie Anne Criscione-Houser | Melissa B. Hostick | Denver Catrice Burris
Mediator: John W. Brookman
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Huang’s Second Amended Verified Complaint asserted two principal causes of action.
The first alleged discrimination under Title VII. Huang alleged disparate treatment based on race, sex, and national origin. She also alleged that UTA undermined her authority, removed her from leadership roles, assigned additional work, and denied opportunities. She further alleged a hostile work environment based on her protected status as an Asian female of Chinese origin.
The second cause of action alleged retaliation under Title VII. Huang claimed she engaged in protected activity by complaining about alleged discrimination. She alleged that UTA then took adverse actions against her.
The jury questions ultimately focused on adverse employment action, sex, protected activity, retaliation, and sex-based harassment.
Defense
UTA denied that it discriminated or retaliated against Huang. It also denied that Huang suffered damages caused by unlawful conduct.
UTA admitted that Huang complained to supervisors and the Equal Opportunity Services office. It acknowledged that her EOS complaint constituted protected activity. However, UTA denied that her complaints to supervisors constituted protected activity.
UTA asserted that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. It maintained that the same decisions would have occurred regardless of any alleged unlawful motive.
UTA also asserted limitations, exhaustion, immunity, mitigation, and damages-cap defenses. It sought dismissal of the case and a judgment that Huang take nothing.
Pretrial Motion
UTA moved for summary judgment under ECF No. 42.
On April 6, 2026, the Court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court stated that it considered the facts, applicable law, and relevant docket entries before denying the motion.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on August 14, 2026. Judge Mark T. Pittman accepted the verdict at 7:38 p.m. that day.
On Question One, the jury found that Huang's removal as Associate Chair constituted a materially adverse employment action.
On Question Two, the jury found that Huang did not prove that UTA would not have removed her as Associate Chair but for her sex.
The jury then turned to the retaliation claims. On Question Three, it found that Huang's February 19, 2024 conversation with Armanios about faculty workload constituted protected activity under Title VII.
On Question Four, the jury found that her removal as Associate Chair was an adverse employment action. It determined that the removal would have made a reasonable employee reluctant to make or support a charge of discrimination.
On Question Five, the jury found that Huang would not have been removed from the Associate Chair position but for her protected activity.
The jury also addressed the harassment claims. On Question Six, it found that Armanios harassed Huang because of her sex.
On Question Seven, the jury found that UTA knew or should have known about the sex-based harassment. On Question Eight, it found that UTA failed to take prompt remedial action.
On Question Nine, the jury awarded damages. It awarded $65,000 in back pay and benefits from March 24, 2024 through the date of the verdict. It awarded another $10,000 for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
The verdict produced a total damages award of $75,000 for Huang.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
