According to a Law360 report, the Supreme Court has refused to hear two cases by former Texas Southern professor Deana Pollard Sacks. The court's order list showed it would not grant certiorari for her petitions seeking to reopen Equal Pay Act, Title VII harassment, and race and gender bias claims against Texas Southern University. No reason for the refusal was provided. David James Sacks of Sacks Law Firm represents Sacks, while Andrew Harris from the Texas Attorney General's Office represents Texas Southern.

Per the legal publication, Sacks filed two petitions in February and March, challenging the Fifth Circuit's decision not to revive her hostile work environment claims against TSU, where she worked from 2000 to 2010.

She argued that the court wrongly applied the “discrete-act ‘factors' test” instead of recognizing her situation under the doctrine of continuing violations. She emphasized that her harassment claims involve repeated actions spanning several years, indicating a pattern of behavior. Sacks contends this approach conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in the 2004 Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders ruling, which acknowledges harassment claims as consisting of repeated actions and underscores the importance of considering the cumulative effect of such behavior over time.

Sacks filed her initial lawsuit against the institution in 2018, and a follow-up lawsuit in 2022 due to alleged worsening harassment. She claimed that her complaints about campus discrimination led to colleagues shouting at her, a significant increase in workload, withheld salaries, and the need for private security after being followed to her car. The only claim from Sacks' first lawsuit that wasn't dismissed was related to the Equal Pay Act, which a jury ultimately decided against her in favor of Texas Southern. Her second lawsuit was dismissed for lack of a claim, as Sacks detailed in her filings.

Sacks argued that the Fifth Circuit made a mistake by siding with Texas Southern in her lawsuit. She contends that her original lawsuit only needed to demonstrate she faced retaliation for her complaints, not necessarily prove that retaliatory harassment resulted in her resignation. She called on the Supreme Court to reconsider her case, emphasizing how the bullying she endured is an issue that disproportionately impacts women in the workforce.

“The Fifth Circuit essentially abolished the negligence theory of liability that evolved to address this form of discrimination which causes involuntary resignation. The court should grant review to settle the various circuit conflicts concerning this form of discrimination so critically important to women,” Sacks said in the petition filed in February.