$5.1M Verdict: ESU’s Costly Religious Discrimination Failure
A Kansas jury has sent a clear message to public universities: failing to protect employees’ religious rights carries serious consequences. On January 21, 2026, a Lyon County jury awarded Dr. Dusti Howell $5,181,344.55 in damages against Emporia State University—one of the most significant religious discrimination verdicts in Kansas history. For educational institutions, HR departments, and anyone navigating workplace religious discrimination, this case is a defining legal moment.
A 20-Year Career Derailed by a Week-Long Church Conference
“They just made his life miserable because of his religious practice.” Attorney Linus BakerDr. Howell was no newcomer to Emporia State. He had served as a tenured professor in Instructional Design and Technology for over two decades. His family are members of a non-denominational church that observes what are traditionally considered Jewish holidays—including the Feast of Tabernacles. For 23 years, the university accommodated this practice without issue.
That changed in 2020 when Howell returned from the week-long Feast of Tabernacles to a meeting with Dean Joan Brewer and interim IDT department chair Jim Persinger. He was told that future religious absences would require eight weeks of pre-approved notice from HR, the dean, and his chair. Attendance at a tech conference? No approval needed. A one-week church observance he had attended since the age of six? Approval required—and not guaranteed.
Hostile Work Environment
What followed, according to the lawsuit, was a calculated campaign to push Howell out. Dean Brewer issued a disciplinary letter riddled with factual errors: claiming Howell had been absent for “weeks” when it was one week, inflating a single-day absence to a week, and citing policy violations from a policy that didn’t actually exist in writing. Howell was excluded from email chains, disciplined for missing meetings he wasn’t told about, and eventually demoted to teaching only freshman courses—after years of teaching exclusively at the graduate level. He ultimately resigned, believing termination was imminent.
His attorney, Linus Baker, described it plainly: “They just made his life miserable because of his religious practice.”
No Written Policy—A Critical Legal Failure
At the heart of this case is a policy gap that proved catastrophic for the university. Emporia State had no written policy accommodating religious observances—despite a 2016 faculty senate proposal specifically designed to create one. That proposal never passed. Worse, court filings indicate the university had developed a pattern of denying religious accommodation requests from students as well.
This absence of policy wasn’t just an administrative oversight. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, employers—including public universities—are required to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced this in its 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, which held that employers must demonstrate concrete undue hardship before denying a religious accommodation—not simply assert inconvenience.
Emporia State couldn’t meet that standard. The accommodation Howell requested had been granted without incident for more than two decades. The university’s own track record undermined any hardship argument entirely.
California Laws Protecting Employees from Religious Discrimination
California provides some of the strongest protections in the nation against workplace discrimination, including religious discrimination. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would result in an “undue hardship” that is significantly more than minimal inconvenience—a higher standard than federal law. This includes allowing time off for religious observances, accommodating dress and grooming requirements associated with religion, and providing space for prayer or worship when feasible.
Unlike Kansas, where the Groff v. DeJoy ruling emphasizes federal protections, California law enforces an even stricter interpretation of undue hardship, often leaning in favor of employees. When comparing FEHA to Kansas law, FEHA allows broader claims and provides stronger legal recourse to employees. The process for proving undue hardship in Kansas, as illustrated in the Howell case, aligns with federal law after Groff but lacks the expansive protections and enforcement mechanisms that California offers. For example, FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees, while Title VII only applies to employers with 15 or more, further ensuring inclusivity in California’s workplace protections.
This disparity highlights the variability in state-level protections and underscores the importance of legal advocacy in navigating these nuances. California’s framework demonstrates a robust commitment to balancing employee rights and business needs, ensuring workplace fairness for individuals of all religious backgrounds.
The Jury’s Verdict: $2.1M in Compensatory, $3M in Punitive Damages
The jury found Emporia State, Dean Brewer, and Jim Persinger liable and awarded Howell $2.1 million in compensatory damages—representing the wages and career earnings lost due to his forced resignation—and $3 million in punitive damages, signaling deliberate misconduct rather than a mere policy misunderstanding. Additional attorney’s fees and damages are expected to increase the total further. An appeal is reported to be likely.
What Educational Institutions Must Take Away
This verdict carries clear lessons for universities and colleges across the country:
- Written religious accommodation policies are non-negotiable. The absence of a formal policy left ESU legally exposed and created the conditions for discriminatory conduct to go unchecked.
- Consistency matters. Applying stricter standards to religious absences than to professional ones—like conference travel—is precisely the kind of disparity that Title VII is designed to prevent.
- Constructive discharge is a legal liability. Creating a hostile work environment that effectively forces an employee to resign carries the same legal weight as wrongful termination.
- Post-Groff, the burden falls on employers. Universities must be prepared to demonstrate genuine, substantial hardship—not just inconvenience—before denying any religious accommodation request.
Religious Discrimination Has No Place in the Workplace
Dr. Howell’s case is a stark reminder that workplace religious discrimination—whether overt or disguised as policy enforcement—can devastate careers and cost institutions millions. No employee should face discipline for observing their faith, particularly when that accommodation had been honored for years.
If you or someone you know has experienced religious discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment, speaking with an experienced employment attorney is a critical first step. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation.