A&M-Texarkana discrimination case heads to trial as judge voices skepticism

A discrimination lawsuit against Texas A&M University-Texarkana brought by a disabled Army veteran is headed for trial this fall, but the federal judge who declined to dismiss it openly questioned how strong the case is.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III denied the university’s motion to dismiss in a written order March 18, following an hour-long hearing in Texarkana on March 5. Jury selection and trial are set for Sept. 28.

Nelson Irizarry, a retired Army colonel from Nevada County, Arkansas, sued TAMUT in November 2024. He joined the university in 2020 as a tenure-track assistant professor of mechanical engineering after a 33-year military career. He is Hispanic, Catholic and originally from Puerto Rico, and says he is 100% disabled from his service.

The case turns on a single claim. Irizarry alleges the university violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it cut his salary by $25,000, from about $95,000 to $70,000, because of his national origin, ethnicity, race and religion. He says the cut came after he had signed a contract keeping his pay at the higher figure, and that the university also took back money it had already paid him.

The university, defended by the Texas Attorney General’s office, denies any discrimination. It says the reduction reflected Irizarry’s move from a tenure-track professor to a non-tenure-track instructor, a change that followed his failure to submit a required portfolio for his pre-tenure review. At the hearing, Assistant Attorney General John Ramsey told the court that Irizarry had even sent an email specifically asking not to be considered for tenure.

Much of the argument centered on a single comparison. To show discrimination, Irizarry points to a computer science lecturer, identified in court as Professor Ren, who he says is less qualified but paid more. Ramsey told the court that the actual gap is small, saying Ren earned about $72,000 against Irizarry’s $70,000, a difference of roughly $2,000, not the larger figure Irizarry had alleged. Schroeder returned to that number, asking at one point, “By $2,000?”

Ramsey also argued the comparison undercuts Irizarry’s own theory. Irizarry alleges his department’s decision-makers favored Muslim colleagues, but Ren, the colleague he points to, is not Muslim. As Ramsey put it, the claim cannot prove discrimination “because you’re non-Muslim when the person you point to is also non-Muslim.”

Irizarry’s attorney, Stefanie Klein, argued the tenure-track issue is beside the point. She said there was no legitimate reason to cut an instructor’s pay by 25%, especially when a less-qualified lecturer in the same college, under the same dean, earns more. She pointed to other allegations as circumstantial evidence, including that Muslim engineering professors were given more desirable class times and that Irizarry was passed over for a program coordinator position and denied lab support.

Schroeder let the case go forward, but made clear it was a close call. He said he was “struggling” with the decision and had rarely seen a case come “close to… probably needing to be dismissed on the basis of just inadequate pleadings.” Most such cases are resolved at summary judgment, he noted, “but this is a little closer.”

A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a ruling on the merits. It means only that the allegations are strong enough to proceed. The university’s substantive defenses, including sovereign immunity and its argument that the pay cut had a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis, remain to be decided.

Fact discovery is set to close June 22. Irizarry is represented by Frank Hill and Stefanie Klein of Hill Gilstrap in Arlington. TAMUT is represented by the Texas Attorney General’s office.