On July 28, 2026, a Weil team secured a major victory for the University of Michigan, obtaining the complete dismissal with prejudice of a complaint brought by the former head of the University’s Office of Multicultural Initiatives, who alleged discrimination and retaliation following her termination in December 2024 for making antisemitic remarks. The termination garnered significant press coverage of the University’s handling of antisemitism on campus, including in the New York Times.

In August 2024, the University received a report that the director of its office focused on student programming had made several antisemitic comments at a professional conference earlier that year, including that her office did not “work with” Jewish students, that the “University is controlled by wealthy Jews,” and that “Jewish board members control the president” of the University. Outside counsel conducted an investigation that substantiated the allegations in the report. The University then undertook a disciplinary process, and, on the eve of a disciplinary review conference, the employee submitted a statement in which she asserted for the first time that she felt the process was tainted by racial and gender bias. Shortly after the disciplinary conference at which the employee stated her position and the University discussed its findings, the University terminated the employee in December 2024.

In July 2025, the former employee sued the University for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Following briefing and argument, Judge Shalina Kumar of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the University’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and entered judgment for the University. In her order granting dismissal, Judge Kumar adopted the positions Weil had advanced in its briefs that there was no plausible inference of discrimination because the employee’s antisemitic conduct was an “obvious alternative explanation” for her termination and because the employee’s subjective perception of bias, alone, could not support her claim. The Court also agreed that there could be no retaliation because the University had notified the employee of a possible termination long before she asserted there was bias in the investigative process.

The Weil team representing the University was led by partners Drew Tulumello, Co-Chair of Weil’s global Litigation Department, Chantale Fiebig and Luna Barrington, and included associates Nick Reade, Kate Rosenstengel and Catherine Cazes.