{"id":132238,"date":"2025-08-28T15:22:20","date_gmt":"2025-08-28T23:22:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/08\/28\/amy-waxs-lawsuit-flew-too-close-to-the-sun-melts-in-shimmering-ball-of-disaster\/"},"modified":"2025-08-28T15:22:20","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T23:22:20","slug":"amy-waxs-lawsuit-flew-too-close-to-the-sun-melts-in-shimmering-ball-of-disaster","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/08\/28\/amy-waxs-lawsuit-flew-too-close-to-the-sun-melts-in-shimmering-ball-of-disaster\/","title":{"rendered":"Amy Wax\u2019s Lawsuit Flew Too Close To The Sun, Melts In Shimmering Ball Of Disaster"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Amy Wax<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s official: Amy Wax\u2019s lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania just got laughed out of court. The Penn Law professor had sued the school after it imposed altogether minor sanctions<\/a> on her following a finding of \u201cflagrant unprofessional conduct.\u201d That outcome followed literally years<\/em> of unprofessional behavior: from baselessly insulting Black graduates<\/a> to inviting white nationalists to campus<\/a>. Rather than accept the penalty \u2014 which did not take away her tenure or job \u2014 Wax filed a lawsuit claiming the school was discriminating against her as a White Jewish woman and something something<\/em> First Amendment.<\/p>\n

Shockingly, that did not work<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Judge Timothy Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not take long to give Wax\u2019s masterwork of self-pity the Icarus treatment:<\/p>\n

\n

As much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case. It is a discrimination case brought under federal antidiscrimination laws. It calls for us to determine whether offensive comments directed at racial minorities are protected by those laws. <\/p>\n

Having considered Penn\u2019s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, we conclude Wax has failed to allege facts that show that her race was a factor in the disciplinary process and there is no cause of action under federal antidiscrimination statutes based on the content of her speech. Thus, we will dismiss the federal discrimination claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

When Wax first filed her complaint, we pointed out that the First Amendment doesn\u2019t get people out of hostile work environment allegations<\/a>. For his part, Judge Savage already tried to impress upon Wax that the First Amendment claims weren\u2019t going to fly<\/a> when she tried to have her sanctions enjoined. So today\u2019s opinion shouldn\u2019t come as a surprise to any but the most delusional observer. <\/p>\n

For those keeping score at home, Wax claimed that, after repeated \u2014 and increasingly audacious \u2014 statements about race including explaining that the country really needed fewer Asians<\/a>, the sanctions Penn levied were actually racial discrimination against her.<\/em><\/p>\n

She had two theories. First, she argued that she was being discriminated against because the content of her speech dealt with race. That\u2019s the part where she was trying to shoehorn the First Amendment into a discrimination case and Judge Savage was appropriately savage in pointing out that discrimination laws cover the race of speakers and not the speech. Attempting to get around this obstacle, Wax proffered a wacky theory was that the school doesn\u2019t punish critics of Israel the way she\u2019s being punished for saying Black students can\u2019t get good grades at Penn and therefore the school is discriminating her for being Jewish. She cobbled together a few instances of speakers at Penn who criticized Israel\u2019s conduct in Gaza and didn\u2019t get punished the way she did. The judge wasn\u2019t impressed.<\/p>\n

\n

As is apparent from Wax\u2019s allegations and what she did not allege, the purported comparators are not comparators. She did not allege any of them made more than two harmful statements. See Wilcher<\/em>, 441 F. Appx at 882. She did not allege they made statements about the law school or even the wider University community. All of the comments in her complaint had to do with current events. None of the alleged comparators had a pattern of making denigrating and derogatory statements about minorities. Wax also does not identify the race of the alleged comparators, except Almallah, a Palestinian who participated in a rally in support of Palestine. They do not compare to Wax, a tenured law professor with a record of derogatory and discriminatory statements to and about members of the university community, who was given warnings and on whom lesser disciplinary measures were imposed before she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is the Wax playbook in miniature: mistake academic tenure for a Willy Wonka-style golden ticket to rant about white grievance fantasies, then shriek \u201ccensorship!\u201d when the school says the First Amendment doesn\u2019t let her make students feel like their professor is discriminating against them on the basis of race. She keeps trying to rerun this routine in different courts and committees, as if eventually someone will squint hard enough at the statutes and say, \u201cYou know what, Amy, you\u2019re right \u2014 racial harassers are<\/em> a protected class.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without a federal discrimination claim, her state contract claims couldn\u2019t keep her in federal court. <\/p>\n

\n

In sum, her allegations, accepted as true, do not pass the plausibility test. Conclusory statements are not substitutes for facts. Subjective beliefs are not facts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He\u2019s talking about the complaint, but this unintentionally sums up the whole Amy Wax \u201cacademic freedom\u201d lament<\/a>. Conclusory statements and subjective beliefs are not facts. And to the extent academic freedom exists to shield academics in the pursuit of truth, it\u2019s not an excuse to lazily hammer out your Fox News talking head application and pretend it\u2019s scholarship.<\/p>\n

As a final twist, Judge Savage clarifies that no amendment could possibly salvage this turd, denying leave for Wax to file a potential amended complaint. <\/p>\n

Thus ends \u2014 for now \u2014 this academic dumpster fire. But Wax still has her job, so the next professional inquiry is surely around the corner.<\/p>\n

(Check out the opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Amy Wax\u2019s Lawsuit Flew Too Close To The Sun, Melts In Shimmering Ball Of Disaster<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Amy Wax<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s official: Amy Wax\u2019s lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania just got laughed out of court. The Penn Law professor had sued the school after it imposed altogether minor sanctions<\/a> on her following a finding of \u201cflagrant unprofessional conduct.\u201d That outcome followed literally years<\/em> of unprofessional behavior: from baselessly insulting Black graduates<\/a> to inviting white nationalists to campus<\/a>. Rather than accept the penalty \u2014 which did not take away her tenure or job \u2014 Wax filed a lawsuit claiming the school was discriminating against her as a White Jewish woman and something something<\/em> First Amendment.<\/p>\n

Shockingly, that did not work<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Judge Timothy Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not take long to give Wax\u2019s masterwork of self-pity the Icarus treatment:<\/p>\n

\n

As much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case. It is a discrimination case brought under federal antidiscrimination laws. It calls for us to determine whether offensive comments directed at racial minorities are protected by those laws. <\/p>\n

Having considered Penn\u2019s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, we conclude Wax has failed to allege facts that show that her race was a factor in the disciplinary process and there is no cause of action under federal antidiscrimination statutes based on the content of her speech. Thus, we will dismiss the federal discrimination claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

When Wax first filed her complaint, we pointed out that the First Amendment doesn\u2019t get people out of hostile work environment allegations<\/a>. For his part, Judge Savage already tried to impress upon Wax that the First Amendment claims weren\u2019t going to fly<\/a> when she tried to have her sanctions enjoined. So today\u2019s opinion shouldn\u2019t come as a surprise to any but the most delusional observer. <\/p>\n

For those keeping score at home, Wax claimed that, after repeated \u2014 and increasingly audacious \u2014 statements about race including explaining that the country really needed fewer Asians<\/a>, the sanctions Penn levied were actually racial discrimination against her.<\/em><\/p>\n

She had two theories. First, she argued that she was being discriminated against because the content of her speech dealt with race. That\u2019s the part where she was trying to shoehorn the First Amendment into a discrimination case and Judge Savage was appropriately savage in pointing out that discrimination laws cover the race of speakers and not the speech. Attempting to get around this obstacle, Wax proffered a wacky theory was that the school doesn\u2019t punish critics of Israel the way she\u2019s being punished for saying Black students can\u2019t get good grades at Penn and therefore the school is discriminating her for being Jewish. She cobbled together a few instances of speakers at Penn who criticized Israel\u2019s conduct in Gaza and didn\u2019t get punished the way she did. The judge wasn\u2019t impressed.<\/p>\n

\n

As is apparent from Wax\u2019s allegations and what she did not allege, the purported comparators are not comparators. She did not allege any of them made more than two harmful statements. See Wilcher<\/em>, 441 F. Appx at 882. She did not allege they made statements about the law school or even the wider University community. All of the comments in her complaint had to do with current events. None of the alleged comparators had a pattern of making denigrating and derogatory statements about minorities. Wax also does not identify the race of the alleged comparators, except Almallah, a Palestinian who participated in a rally in support of Palestine. They do not compare to Wax, a tenured law professor with a record of derogatory and discriminatory statements to and about members of the university community, who was given warnings and on whom lesser disciplinary measures were imposed before she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is the Wax playbook in miniature: mistake academic tenure for a Willy Wonka-style golden ticket to rant about white grievance fantasies, then shriek \u201ccensorship!\u201d when the school says the First Amendment doesn\u2019t let her make students feel like their professor is discriminating against them on the basis of race. She keeps trying to rerun this routine in different courts and committees, as if eventually someone will squint hard enough at the statutes and say, \u201cYou know what, Amy, you\u2019re right \u2014 racial harassers are<\/em> a protected class.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without a federal discrimination claim, her state contract claims couldn\u2019t keep her in federal court. <\/p>\n

\n

In sum, her allegations, accepted as true, do not pass the plausibility test. Conclusory statements are not substitutes for facts. Subjective beliefs are not facts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He\u2019s talking about the complaint, but this unintentionally sums up the whole Amy Wax \u201cacademic freedom\u201d lament<\/a>. Conclusory statements and subjective beliefs are not facts. And to the extent academic freedom exists to shield academics in the pursuit of truth, it\u2019s not an excuse to lazily hammer out your Fox News talking head application and pretend it\u2019s scholarship.<\/p>\n

As a final twist, Judge Savage clarifies that no amendment could possibly salvage this turd, denying leave for Wax to file a potential amended complaint. <\/p>\n

Thus ends \u2014 for now \u2014 this academic dumpster fire. But Wax still has her job, so the next professional inquiry is surely around the corner.<\/p>\n

(Check out the opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amy Wax It\u2019s official: Amy Wax\u2019s lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania just got laughed out of court. The Penn Law professor had sued the school after it imposed altogether minor sanctions on her following a finding of \u201cflagrant unprofessional conduct.\u201d That outcome followed literally years of unprofessional behavior: from baselessly insulting Black graduates to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":132226,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Headshot-300x200-haSU5H.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132238","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132238\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}