When DEI Leaders Face Discrimination: The Sac State Lawsuit
She was hired to champion equity. Now she’s suing the institution that hired her for the very discrimination she was brought in to fight.
Mia Settles-Tidwell spent 32 years building a career around inclusion and fairness. In November 2021, Sacramento State recruited her as Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President for Inclusive Excellence. She arrived with a clear mandate: lead the campus’s diversity efforts, implement an antiracism plan, and strengthen the school’s response to sexual harassment cases. By most measures, she delivered.
Yet today, Settles-Tidwell has filed a lawsuit against Sacramento State, naming President Luke Wood and the California State University Board of Trustees as defendants. Her claims? Age, race, and gender discrimination, along with allegations of a hostile work environment that ultimately forced her out.
This post breaks down what happened: the details of the lawsuit, the alleged discriminatory treatment, how it fits into a troubling pattern of discrimination claims across the CSU system, the protections California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) offers employees, and what you can do if you find yourself facing something similar.
A Promising Start That Took a Dark Turn
Settles-Tidwell’s early record at Sac State speaks for itself. She hired the school’s first Universal Access and Inclusion director. She led the CSU-wide Juneteenth Symposium in 2024. She created taskforces to confront both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus. By any reasonable standard, she was doing the job she was hired to do—and doing it well.
“It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.” Mainak D’Attaray
Her working relationship with President Luke Wood, who stepped into his role in July 2023, started on solid ground. In fact, in November 2023, Wood wrote her an unsolicited letter of recommendation. That detail matters. It paints a picture of a leader who, at least on paper, valued her contributions.
Then things changed. By early 2024, that relationship had soured dramatically. What had looked like mutual respect gave way to a series of actions that, according to the lawsuit, created an increasingly hostile work environment. The speed of that shift forms the backbone of her case.
The Alleged Discriminatory Treatment
The lawsuit lays out specific allegations that, taken together, describe a pattern of mistreatment:
- Exclusion. Settles-Tidwell was removed from the Black Honors College leadership team—despite having written the original proposal herself. She was also shut out of budget planning processes central to her role.
- Pay discrimination. She received a 1.5% merit pay raise. Her peers received a minimum of 2.5%. That gap, the lawsuit argues, reflects pay discrimination tied to her protected characteristics.
- Public humiliation. In a March 2024 email, President Wood told her that her leadership was “perceived as not effective.” According to the complaint, he berated her in front of cabinet-level colleagues.
- Stripping of responsibilities. Her authority to hire staff and direct divisional programming was restricted, undercutting her ability to do the job she was recruited to lead.
Her attorney, Mainak D’Attaray, put it plainly: “It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.”
When Settles-Tidwell raised concerns, the situation reportedly worsened. She requested a meeting with Wood to discuss his March email. She received no response.
Constructive Dismissal: When Resignation Is Not Really a Choice
Sometimes an employee resigns—but the resignation isn’t truly voluntary. The law calls this constructive dismissal. It happens when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel they have no choice but to quit. In the eyes of the law, that kind of forced resignation can be treated much like a wrongful termination.
On April 11, 2024, Settles-Tidwell resigned. She cited “continuous, disparate and adverse actions that created a hostile working environment.”
What followed was striking. The same day she resigned, Wood publicly announced her departure. He asked her, via a group text, not to attend cabinet meetings. And yet, in public, he praised her as a “strategic thinker.” That contradiction—private exclusion paired with public praise—is exactly the kind of mixed signal that often surfaces in constructive dismissal claims.
Settles-Tidwell didn’t stay silent. She wrote a farewell letter to the student newspaper, The State Hornet. She later published a book, Unscathed: A Harm Reduction Strategy for Women of Color in the Workplace, framing her experience as part of a broader pattern of institutional harm.
A Pattern of Discrimination at CSU
Settles-Tidwell’s case does not stand alone. It fits into a wider series of discrimination claims against the California State University system—the largest public university system in the country.
Earlier this year, CSU paid a $12 million settlement to former Cal State San Bernardino administrators Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers. Both alleged they were fired or pushed out after reporting gender inequities, harassment, and discrimination. Dr. Rogers alone received a $6 million jury award for non-economic damages tied to gender-based hostile work environment claims—believed to be among the largest employment discrimination settlements ever against the system.
The irony is hard to ignore. These cases are unfolding inside an institution that publicly markets itself as a leader in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The gap between that public message and these private allegations is precisely what makes the pattern so concerning.
Understanding Your Rights: FEHA and Hostile Work Environments
If you work in California, you have powerful legal protection through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In several key ways, FEHA goes further than federal law—making it especially important for employees facing a hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, or pay discrimination.
Here’s what sets FEHA apart:
- Severe or pervasive. Under FEHA, a hostile work environment can be established if the conduct is either severe or pervasive. Federal law typically requires both. This lower threshold makes it easier for employees to bring valid claims.
- Personal liability for supervisors. Individual supervisors—not just the employer—can be held personally liable for harassment.
- Broad coverage. FEHA applies to employers with as few as five employees.
- Prevention requirements. Employers must provide regular anti-harassment training and maintain clear, written anti-harassment policies.
So what actually counts as a hostile work environment? Not every difficult or unpleasant job qualifies. The law draws a line: conduct becomes legally actionable when it targets you because of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—and is either severe or pervasive enough to alter your working conditions.
Pay discrimination follows similar logic. When pay disparities are tied to protected characteristics like race and gender, they can violate both FEHA and federal law. And the gap doesn’t have to be dramatic. Even a difference as small as the roughly 1% alleged in Settles-Tidwell’s case—1.5% versus 2.5%—can be the basis for a valid claim.
The Broader Implications for Women of Color in Leadership
Settles-Tidwell’s experience reflects a systemic challenge facing women of color in leadership roles, particularly within academic institutions. They are often hired to drive institutional change—then subjected to the very discrimination they were brought in to address. It’s a position that demands enormous resilience while offering little protection.
The stakes can be devastating. Settles-Tidwell herself pointed to the tragic story of Antoinette Candia-Bailey, a Black vice president at Lincoln University who died by suicide in January 2024. Settles-Tidwell cited that loss as a catalyst for writing her book and speaking publicly about what she endured.
Women of color in DEI leadership face a particular kind of vulnerability. They carry the responsibility of reshaping institutions, yet they frequently lack the support, authority, and protection that role requires. When the same institutions that recruited them turn hostile, the consequences—professional, financial, and personal—can be profound.
Where the Case Stands Now
Settles-Tidwell filed her lawsuit on May 5, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The case has been assigned to Hon. Gail Killefer in Department 37.
Several legal milestones lie ahead. The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference, along with a September 8 hearing on CSU’s motion to transfer the case to Sacramento County Superior Court. Settles-Tidwell opposes the transfer, citing concerns about potential jury pool bias in Sacramento.
For its part, CSU denies all of the allegations. The university has stated it is “prepared to vigorously defend against these claims.” As with any lawsuit, these remain allegations until proven in court.
If This Sounds Familiar, You May Have Legal Options
Settles-Tidwell’s case carries a clear lesson: discrimination can happen at any level, in any organization—even one that publicly champions equity. Hostile work environments, pay discrimination, and sexual discrimination don’t disappear simply because an institution says the right things about inclusion.
If you work in California, FEHA gives you real, enforceable protections. You do not have to endure discriminatory treatment in silence, and you do not have to navigate it alone.
If any part of this story resonates with your own experience, the most important step you can take is to speak with an experienced employment attorney—ideally before taking any other action, including resigning. Early legal guidance can protect your rights and strengthen your position.
At Helmer Friedman LLP, we’ve spent more than 20 years advocating for employees facing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. We offer personalized attention, a proven track record of results, and complete confidentiality.
Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your case. Your advocate in justice is just one conversation away.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a hostile work environment in California?
Under California’s FEHA, a hostile work environment exists when you face conduct that targets you because of a protected characteristic—such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation—and that conduct is either severe or pervasive enough to affect your working conditions. Unlike federal law, FEHA only requires one of those two factors, not both. A genuinely difficult boss isn’t automatically illegal; the conduct must be tied to a protected class to be actionable.
Can I sue for pay discrimination in California?
Yes. If you’re paid less than colleagues doing similar work, and that difference is connected to a protected characteristic like race or gender, you may have a valid pay discrimination claim under both FEHA and federal law. Importantly, even small gaps can be actionable. A consultation with an employment attorney can help you determine whether your situation qualifies.
This article includes information from the reporting of Tarini Mehta.
