A former university official claims she was terminated after seeking medical accommodations for cancer treatment and advocating for a thorough investigation into a sexual harassment allegation involving a graduate research assistant. The complaint was filed by Cindy Hawthorne on March 10, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
According to court documents, Hawthorne served as Assistant Director of Equity and Civil Rights Compliance at Georgia State University from November 2023 until October 2024. She asserts that her dismissal violated Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Rehabilitation Act. The filing outlines that Hawthorne was diagnosed with cancer shortly after starting her role and initially received support from her department, including leave, remote work options, and flexible scheduling to accommodate chemotherapy treatments.
The complaint details that by spring 2024, senior leadership at Georgia State University began expressing concerns about Hawthorne’s productivity due to delays attributed to her illness. In May 2024, she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) which referenced her reduced output and cited delays caused by sick leave. Hawthorne alleges that this action coincided with internal disagreements over her handling of a sexual harassment case involving a graduate research assistant and a faculty member. She states that she was directed to change her findings in this investigation but maintained that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further inquiry under both Title IX and Title VII.
Hawthorne contends that her placement on the PIP followed closely after she opposed changes to her investigative conclusions regarding potential liability in the harassment case. She also claims that references in the PIP to her pace did not account for previously approved accommodations allowing extended deadlines due to ongoing medical treatment. The complaint notes: “the PIP explicitly faults Hawthorne for her assessment of the evidence regarding the claim and was imposed within weeks of her being directed to change her conclusions regarding potential liability.”
The legal filing describes how requests for continued accommodations were met with pressure from supervisors to return to in-office work despite health risks associated with a compromised immune system. Comments from leadership reportedly included suggestions that Hawthorne needed to “pull her weight.” Extensions to both accommodations and performance plans occurred throughout summer 2024 as Hawthorne underwent additional radiation treatment.
Hawthorne asserts that she received no meaningful feedback indicating failure under the PIP criteria before being notified of termination on October 10, 2024. She argues that these actions constituted discriminatory termination based on disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and retaliatory conduct under both Title IX and Title VII for opposing gender-based harassment.
The complaint states: “Plaintiff’s disability was a determinative, but-for factor in her termination,” adding that protected activity related to reporting sex-based discrimination led directly to adverse employment actions.
In terms of remedies sought, Hawthorne requests back pay, front pay, lost benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress related specifically to Title VII retaliation claims, attorney’s fees, costs associated with litigation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, permanent injunctions against unlawful practices alleged in the suit, and any other equitable relief deemed justified by the court.
The lawsuit confirms administrative steps were taken prior to filing: “On March 13, 2025, Hawthorne filed a charge of disability discrimination and Title VII retaliation against the Board of Regents with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” A right-to-sue notice was issued December 10, 2025.
Cindy Hawthorne is represented by attorneys Artur Davis (HKM Employment Attorneys LLP) and Jerilyn Gardner. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01328-SCJ-RDC.
Source: 126cv01328_Cindy_Hawthorne_v_Board_of_Regents_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georiga.pdf
