The complaint draws the contrast between Eastman\u2019s treatment and Paton\u2019s with some pointed precision: \u201cChapman has to date extended better treatment to Eastman than to Paton.\u201d The complaint also notes that certain members of Chapman\u2019s Board of Trustees \u201cremained staunch advocates and allies of Eastman\u201d even after Paton\u2019s arrival, a fact Paton discovered when he was critical of Eastman on issues entirely unrelated to Eastman\u2019s views on marriage.<\/p>\n
The complaint\u2019s theory of the case is that Chapman\u2019s conservative board members and donors were never particularly thrilled about having an openly gay dean, quietly tolerated the situation, then used the Trump administration\u2019s DEI rollback rhetoric as cover to dismantle the university\u2019s DEI infrastructure in the spring of 2025. Then, after a strategic delay to avoid the appearance of obvious discrimination, fired Paton that fall.<\/p>\n
That delay is spelled out explicitly: the same decision makers who terminated Chapman\u2019s DEI office and its Provost in March 2025 \u201ceither recognized and\/or were advised that they could not get rid of Paton at the same time. That would be too obvious and discriminatory per se. As such, they laid in wait for approximately six months before terminating Paton as the Dean of the law school based on wholly pretextual and bogus grounds.\u201d<\/p>\n
The discrimination, per the complaint, didn\u2019t start with the termination. It allegedly started almost immediately after Paton arrived. His sexual orientation was notably absent from Chapman\u2019s public announcements about his appointment, in contrast to how the university handled other hires. After Paton married his husband in October 2024, his spouse was routinely excluded from university functions unless Paton specifically asked \u2014 and even then, his husband\u2019s name tag often had to be handwritten while everyone else\u2019s was pre-printed.<\/p>\n
The most striking moment in the complaint involves Board Chair James Burra. When a professor publicly congratulated Paton at a university event days after his October 2024 wedding, the complaint alleges Burra\u2019s face registered \u201cshock.\u201d At the dinner immediately afterward, Burra sat next to Paton\u2019s husband and said, \u201cI thought you guys were just really good friends.\u201d He then said nothing further to either of them for the rest of the evening, a stark change from his previous warmth, which had previously included an enthusiastic invitation to come see his collection of vintage Corvettes. That invitation was never repeated.<\/p>\n
The termination letter, delivered on October 1, 2025, cited scholarship overspending: \u201cdue to FSOL\u2019s awarding of scholarships well in excess of budget without any conversation with (or approval from) senior leadership, effective financial oversight of FSOL by a new dean is required.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chapman has doubled down on this position. A university spokesperson said in a statement, \u201cThe university did not discriminate against Paul Paton. The university\u2019s decision to remove Mr. Paton as dean was based solely on its assessment that effective financial oversight by a new dean was required. Mr. Paton remains an active and valued member of the law school faculty.\u201d<\/p>\n
The complaint has a few problems with this explanation. Paton was never asked a single question about scholarships before or after his termination, and was given no opportunity to respond. And perhaps most awkwardly for Chapman: the law school ran a $2 million budget surplus the year before, and over a $1 million surplus in 2024-25. The complaint pointedly notes that the alleged scholarship overspend equals \u201cthe same amount as the surplus he had previously been praised for saving.\u201d<\/p>\n
The complaint further alleges that Chapman\u2019s budgeting model actually depended on students losing their scholarships due to the mandatory grading curve, and on top of students transferring out after their first year, and that Paton\u2019s success in preventing both of those things is what created the alleged \u201cshortfall.\u201d<\/p>\n
Faculty weren\u2019t buying the financial rationale either. At a special meeting called less than a week after Paton\u2019s removal, administration presented what the complaint describes as a \u201cnew dire financial situation at FSOL.\u201d Faculty, who knew about the prior surpluses, were \u201cunderstandably offended.\u201d They described Paton\u2019s removal as \u201cdevastating\u201d and \u201coutrageous,\u201d and stated bluntly, \u201cthis is outright homophobia.\u201d<\/p>\n
The complaint brings seven causes of action: breach of written contract, sexual orientation discrimination under FEHA, retaliation under FEHA, failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, accounting, and failure to pay wages. It seeks economic and noneconomic damages, punitive damages, and attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n
Paton\u2019s counsel, Jason Kirby of Kirby & Kirby LLP, declined to provide commentary beyond reiterating that his client \u201cfirmly believes in the allegations that we\u2019ve made in the lawsuit,\u201d adding, \u201cIt won\u2019t be until we get into discovery that we\u2019re able to determine what happened behind closed doors.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paton himself put it plainly, \u201cI built a reputation for ethics and integrity long before I started at Chapman, and I am doing my best not to let what the university has done, and how they\u2019ve done it, define me. But that means taking action.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chapman, meanwhile, says the lawsuit is \u201cmeritless\u201d and it \u201cintends to vigorously defend\u201d it.<\/p>\n
Read the full complaint below.<\/p>\n
\n
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Gay Law School Dean Sues For Discrimination, Alleging He Was Fired Because He Married His Husband<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Chapman University\u2019s Fowler School of Law is facing a lawsuit from its former dean, Paul Paton, who alleges he was fired because he\u2019s gay, and that the university used a pretextual budget dispute to cover its tracks.<\/p>\n The complaint (available below), filed June 1 in Orange County Superior Court, lays out a meticulous narrative: Paton, the first openly gay dean in Chapman law school history, was hired in 2023, married his husband in October 2024, and was removed as dean less than a year later. The stated reason? That he awarded too many scholarships without proper approval. Paton\u2019s position is that this is, to borrow a faculty member\u2019s characterization, \u201ca load of BS.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that my termination as Dean was discriminatory and retaliatory,\u201d Paton said in a statement. \u201cI am proud of what we accomplished during my relatively short time as dean\u2014admitting the three strongest classes ever, achieving the highest ranking for the law school nationally since 2012, having no students transfer out in 2025\u2014for the first time in recent memory, changing a culture and retooling for success. I had hoped to be able to do more.\u201d<\/p>\n To get a more fulsome picture of this lawsuit, you need some Chapman context, and that context involves a name ATL readers will recognize: John Eastman<\/a>. Eastman, Chapman\u2019s former law dean, was chair of the National Organization for Marriage, argued against same-sex marriage in California and nationally, and later became one of the architects of the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He was disbarred by the California State Bar in 2024<\/a>. Chapman \u201creached an agreement\u201d<\/a> to let Eastman retire from its faculty in early 2021.<\/p>\n The complaint draws the contrast between Eastman\u2019s treatment and Paton\u2019s with some pointed precision: \u201cChapman has to date extended better treatment to Eastman than to Paton.\u201d The complaint also notes that certain members of Chapman\u2019s Board of Trustees \u201cremained staunch advocates and allies of Eastman\u201d even after Paton\u2019s arrival, a fact Paton discovered when he was critical of Eastman on issues entirely unrelated to Eastman\u2019s views on marriage.<\/p>\n The complaint\u2019s theory of the case is that Chapman\u2019s conservative board members and donors were never particularly thrilled about having an openly gay dean, quietly tolerated the situation, then used the Trump administration\u2019s DEI rollback rhetoric as cover to dismantle the university\u2019s DEI infrastructure in the spring of 2025. Then, after a strategic delay to avoid the appearance of obvious discrimination, fired Paton that fall.<\/p>\n That delay is spelled out explicitly: the same decision makers who terminated Chapman\u2019s DEI office and its Provost in March 2025 \u201ceither recognized and\/or were advised that they could not get rid of Paton at the same time. That would be too obvious and discriminatory per se. As such, they laid in wait for approximately six months before terminating Paton as the Dean of the law school based on wholly pretextual and bogus grounds.\u201d<\/p>\n The discrimination, per the complaint, didn\u2019t start with the termination. It allegedly started almost immediately after Paton arrived. His sexual orientation was notably absent from Chapman\u2019s public announcements about his appointment, in contrast to how the university handled other hires. After Paton married his husband in October 2024, his spouse was routinely excluded from university functions unless Paton specifically asked \u2014 and even then, his husband\u2019s name tag often had to be handwritten while everyone else\u2019s was pre-printed.<\/p>\n The most striking moment in the complaint involves Board Chair James Burra. When a professor publicly congratulated Paton at a university event days after his October 2024 wedding, the complaint alleges Burra\u2019s face registered \u201cshock.\u201d At the dinner immediately afterward, Burra sat next to Paton\u2019s husband and said, \u201cI thought you guys were just really good friends.\u201d He then said nothing further to either of them for the rest of the evening, a stark change from his previous warmth, which had previously included an enthusiastic invitation to come see his collection of vintage Corvettes. That invitation was never repeated.<\/p>\n The termination letter, delivered on October 1, 2025, cited scholarship overspending: \u201cdue to FSOL\u2019s awarding of scholarships well in excess of budget without any conversation with (or approval from) senior leadership, effective financial oversight of FSOL by a new dean is required.\u201d<\/p>\n Chapman has doubled down on this position. A university spokesperson said in a statement, \u201cThe university did not discriminate against Paul Paton. The university\u2019s decision to remove Mr. Paton as dean was based solely on its assessment that effective financial oversight by a new dean was required. Mr. Paton remains an active and valued member of the law school faculty.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint has a few problems with this explanation. Paton was never asked a single question about scholarships before or after his termination, and was given no opportunity to respond. And perhaps most awkwardly for Chapman: the law school ran a $2 million budget surplus the year before, and over a $1 million surplus in 2024-25. The complaint pointedly notes that the alleged scholarship overspend equals \u201cthe same amount as the surplus he had previously been praised for saving.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint further alleges that Chapman\u2019s budgeting model actually depended on students losing their scholarships due to the mandatory grading curve, and on top of students transferring out after their first year, and that Paton\u2019s success in preventing both of those things is what created the alleged \u201cshortfall.\u201d<\/p>\n Faculty weren\u2019t buying the financial rationale either. At a special meeting called less than a week after Paton\u2019s removal, administration presented what the complaint describes as a \u201cnew dire financial situation at FSOL.\u201d Faculty, who knew about the prior surpluses, were \u201cunderstandably offended.\u201d They described Paton\u2019s removal as \u201cdevastating\u201d and \u201coutrageous,\u201d and stated bluntly, \u201cthis is outright homophobia.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint brings seven causes of action: breach of written contract, sexual orientation discrimination under FEHA, retaliation under FEHA, failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, accounting, and failure to pay wages. It seeks economic and noneconomic damages, punitive damages, and attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n Paton\u2019s counsel, Jason Kirby of Kirby & Kirby LLP, declined to provide commentary beyond reiterating that his client \u201cfirmly believes in the allegations that we\u2019ve made in the lawsuit,\u201d adding, \u201cIt won\u2019t be until we get into discovery that we\u2019re able to determine what happened behind closed doors.\u201d<\/p>\n Paton himself put it plainly, \u201cI built a reputation for ethics and integrity long before I started at Chapman, and I am doing my best not to let what the university has done, and how they\u2019ve done it, define me. But that means taking action.\u201d<\/p>\n Chapman, meanwhile, says the lawsuit is \u201cmeritless\u201d and it \u201cintends to vigorously defend\u201d it.<\/p>\n Read the full complaint below.<\/p>\n Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Gay Law School Dean Sues For Discrimination, Alleging He Was Fired Because He Married His Husband<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapman University\u2019s Fowler School of Law is facing a lawsuit from its former dean, Paul Paton, who alleges he was fired because he\u2019s gay, and that the university used a pretextual budget dispute to cover its tracks. The complaint (available below), filed June 1 in Orange County Superior Court, lays out a meticulous narrative: Paton, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":154151,"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-154150","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\/2026\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-kMU09d.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154150","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=154150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154150\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568.jpg?resize=174%2C160&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n