UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ MENG HUANG, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 23-3469 │ v. │ │ THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY; GIORGIO RIZZONI, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:19-cv-01976—James L. Graham, District Judge.

Argued: March 21, 2024

Decided and Filed: August 28, 2024

Before: KETHLEDGE, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Hugh T. McKeegan, OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Jeffrey C. Gerish, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee. Alexandra Z. Brodsky, PUBLIC JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. ON BRIEF: Bruce C. Fox, Andrew J. Horowitz, OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Jeffrey C. Gerish, Christina L. Corl, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee. Alexandra Z. Brodsky, PUBLIC JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

BLOOMEKATZ, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined in full. READLER, J. (pp. 37–48), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. No. 23-3469 Huang v. Ohio State Univ. Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Meng Huang, a former engineering student at The Ohio State University, alleges that her advisor, Professor Giorgio Rizzoni, sexually harassed and assaulted her while she pursued her Ph.D. She brought this action against OSU and Rizzoni. Relevant on appeal are the district court’s grant of summary judgment to OSU on Huang’s Title VII quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and a trial verdict in Rizzoni’s favor on Huang’s due process claim that he violated her right to bodily integrity.

The district court mishandled Huang’s claims against both defendants. First, with respect to the claims against OSU, Huang raised a material dispute of fact as to whether she was an “employee” of OSU for Title VII purposes, even though she was also a student. The two roles are not mutually exclusive, as the district court mistakenly held. So, Huang’s sexual harassment claim under Title VII must go to a jury. Additionally, when Huang physically resisted Rizzoni’s advances by pushing him away, she “opposed” his improper touching even if she did not vocalize her objection. That is enough for “protected activity” under Title VII, so her retaliation claim also should have survived.

Second, with respect to the claim against Rizzoni, the district court violated Huang’s substantial rights when it excluded multiple categories of evidence in service of a confusing trifurcation order. Deeming this evidence “irrelevant” to whether Rizzoni improperly touched Huang, the district court categorically excluded evidence of Rizzoni’s threats to her academic career after she refused his advances. It also prevented Huang from presenting evidence of her impeccable academic credentials and stellar performance duri