Claims of discrimination in faculty hiring at a major public law school have come under scrutiny following a federal lawsuit that accuses university officials and governing bodies of violating civil rights laws by favoring younger candidates over older, more experienced applicants. The suit raises questions about transparency, equal opportunity, and compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination statutes in academic hiring processes.
Francisco Forrest Martin, acting as his own attorney, filed a civil rights complaint on April 13, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and several officials from the University of Georgia (UGA) School of Law. The named defendants include current and former deans, provosts, search committee members, records managers, and other university administrators.
According to the complaint summary, Martin alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). He claims that he was refused interviews or employment for faculty positions at UGA School of Law due to his national origin (Hispanic/Dominican-American), age (65 years old), or both. Martin further asserts that after filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding these issues, he faced retaliation from university officials who continued to deny him opportunities and withheld records requested under the Georgia Open Records Act (GORA).
The complaint outlines specific actions taken by defendants which Martin argues demonstrate discriminatory intent. These include amending recruitment policies to obscure preferential treatment toward younger candidates; providing what Martin describes as “factually false” explanations to EEOC investigators; failing to offer interviews or appointments despite his qualifications; and withholding documents relevant to his grievances. Martin states: “Instead of interviewing and hiring Plaintiff Martin for a faculty position at the Law School, the Defendants interviewed and/or hired other similarly situated candidates…who were considerably less qualified than Plaintiff Martin, non-Hispanic, under 40-years-old…and/or Hispanic and under 40-years-old.”
Martin’s application history is detailed extensively in court filings. He reports applying through official channels for advertised tenure-track positions beginning in August 2024 but receiving no interview offers or appointment recommendations despite meeting all listed qualifications. In contrast, according to Martin’s account supported by cited exhibits such as EEO Reports and job postings, several younger candidates—some with fewer publications or less teaching experience—were offered interviews or hired into similar roles.
The lawsuit also references institutional policies governing faculty recruitment at UGA. According to policy excerpts included in the filing: “All appointments…of members of the faculty shall be made by the President in accordance with Policies of the Board of Regents,” emphasizing merit-based selection criteria. However, until May 2025 an official policy stated: “In order to get a young faculty member off to a good start, consider a temporary reduction from standard teaching responsibilities for one year.” Martin argues this practice disadvantaged older applicants by imposing stricter requirements on them compared to their younger counterparts.
Further allegations include instructions given by former Dean Peter Rutledge directing search committee members not to comment on candidates via email—a move described as intended “to prevent disclosure” under open records laws—and historical statements attributed to current Dean Usha Rodrigues suggesting preference for younger applicants during previous hiring cycles.
Martin describes exhausting all required administrative remedies prior to filing suit: he submitted multiple charges with the EEOC between August 2024 and July 2025 alleging ongoing discrimination based on age and national origin; each resulted in Notices of Right to Sue issued on February 12, 2026. The complaint was filed within ninety days as required by statute.
As relief from the court, Martin seeks monetary damages for lost employment opportunities; declaratory judgments recognizing violations; injunctive orders preventing future discriminatory practices; production of withheld records; attorney fees; and costs associated with litigation.
The case lists Francisco Forrest Martin as plaintiff pro se—meaning he represents himself—with no additional attorneys identified for either party at this stage. The case is docketed as Case No. 3:26-cv-00039-TES.
Source: 326cv39_Francisco_Forrest_v_Board_of_Regents_Complaint_Middle_District_of_Georgia.pdf
