A man may proceed with his “reverse discrimination” lawsuit against the University of Colorado after a federal judge determined Christian E. Sparks had plausibly claimed the Office of Equity discriminated against him because of his sex.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore signed off on a recommendation denying CU’s motion to dismiss Sparks’ civil rights lawsuit. Moore’s May 5 order enables Sparks to pursue his claim under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and other characteristics.

According to his lawsuit, Sparks, of Kiowa, had substantial investigative experience in various government positions at the time he applied to be a civil rights investigator at the Office of Equity for CU’s Anschutz medical and Denver campuses. He alleged that the office had eight female employees and only one male employee when he submitted his application in December 2018.

Sparks did not receive an interview for the job, which ultimately went to a woman 24 years his junior. He claimed CU “has repeatedly and historically granted the female sex/gender de facto a form of preselected, preferential, discriminatory ‘super’ protection,” and accused the school of maintaining quotas.

Representing himself in the lawsuit, Sparks asked for back pay, front pay and other monetary damages. The university maintained that Sparks simply did not meet the qualifications for the job.

In September, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office filed a motion to dismiss Sparks’ complaint. Typically, in cases alleging a sex-based failure to hire under Title VII, plaintiffs must show that they belong to a protected class and were rejected despite being qualified. Further, the position either remains open or is filled by someone who is not in a plaintiff’s protected class.

Under “reverse discrimination” cases, where the plaintiff is not in a historically-disadvantaged group, there must be circumstances pointing to a practice of discrimination against the majority demographic.

“If Plaintiff had alleged that the applicant pool was mostly qualified males, yet the University hired a female, Plaintiff’s statistical allegations might support his claim,” wrote Special Assistant Attorney General Erica Weston. “Plaintiff makes no allegations about the applicant pool, and thus, fails to allege the sort of ‘background circumstances’ that would support an allegation that his failure to be hired was due to sex discrimination against males.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang reviewed the parties’ filings and issued a recommendation last month. She cautioned that Sparks’ allegations were “far from actual evidence of discrimination,” but had nonetheless established a preliminary case against the school.

Wang rejected the university’s argument that Sparks needed to put forward information about the demographics of the applicant pool, and concluded that the statistics Sparks included in his complaint did suggest that CU discriminated against the male majority.

Neither party objected to Wang’s recommendation. They did agree to dismiss Sparks’ second claim of age discrimination.

The case is Sparks v. University of Colorado et al.