SALT LAKE CITY (LN) — A federal judge in Utah allowed a Title VI discrimination claim to proceed against the University of Utah on Monday, finding the plaintiff plausibly alleged she was treated differently than her white husband during a game ejection.
U.S. District Judge David Barlow denied in part the university’s motion to dismiss in Wright v. University of Utah, ruling that the plaintiff, Elizabeth Wright, met the requirements for a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.
Wright, who identifies as Peruvian by birth and “Latina in appearance and accent,” sued the university and several individuals after she was escorted out of a Utah-BYU basketball game on Jan. 18, 2025.
Wright’s amended complaint alleges that guest services employees ripped signs from her children’s hands and yelled abuse at them. When Wright and her husband protested the incident to university representatives, they were directed to a guest services office.
The representatives did not return the signs or apologize, according to the complaint. Wright and her husband returned to their seats.
Later, five or six police officers led by Sergeant Laramie Lancaster approached the couple. Lancaster ordered Wright to leave the premises or face a trespass charge, alleging she had assaulted a university representative.
Wright alleges the assault claim was fabricated and that neither she nor her husband touched any staff. Her husband was blocked from accompanying her by other officers as she was escorted out.
Barlow rejected the university’s attempt to introduce body camera footage and webpage printouts to undermine Wright’s allegations, ruling the documents were not incorporated by reference into the complaint.
On the Title VI claim, Barlow applied the burden-shifting framework from Title VII employment discrimination cases. He found Wright met the prima facie case requirements: she is a member of a protected class, she suffered an adverse action, and she was treated differently than similarly situated comparators.
The university conceded Wright was in a protected class. Barlow found the ejection constituted “some harm” under the standard set in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, noting Wright was “left worse off” by being escorted out under threat of arrest.
Crucially, Barlow found Wright plausibly alleged her husband was a similarly situated comparator. Although the complaint sometimes distinguished their actions, the context implied they were acting together, and Wright specifically alleged the assault accusation against her was false.
“Taking all the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint as true and making reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff states a plausible claim that she was treated differently than a similarly situated individual, namely, her husband,” Barlow wrote.
The judge dismissed Wright’s Equal Protection claim against Sergeant Lancaster, ruling he was entitled to qualified immunity. Wright failed to argue that Lancaster violated clearly established rights, relying instead on her Title VI claim which did not name Lancaster as a defendant.
The breach of contract claim was not dismissed, though Barlow noted the university’s request to resolve it prior to discovery was not appropriately raised in a motion to dismiss.
Wright may file an amended complaint within 30 days.