University’s Apparent Concealment of Real Reasons for Non-Renewal of Adjunct Professor’s Contract Suspended Statute of Limitations

From Friday’s Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Michael Ambri (D. Ariz.) in Grossenbach v. Arizona Bd. of Regents:

The plaintiff in this action, Daniel Grossenbach, founded an organization named SaveCFSD, through which he advocates “for truth, trust, and transparency within Catalina Foothills School District 16 [‘CFSD’].” He founded this organization because he believes the CFSD is acting contrary to his “sincerely held religious beliefs” by “secretly surveying children about their gender and sexuality, pushing radical gender ideologies upon those students, and unconscionably and intentionally keeping that information from parents.”

Grossenbach was employed as an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. On November 30, 2023, he was informed that his teaching contract would not be renewed. Grossenbach believes that his employment was discontinued because the University received complaints about his advocacy with SaveCFSD.

Grossenbach sued on Aug. 22, 2025, and defendants argued (among other things) that his Title VII religious discrimination claim was brought too late. No, the Magistrate Judge concluded:

[I]n Arizona a prospective plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory employment action.

In this case, Grossenbach was informed on November 30, 2023, that his employment contract would not be renewed. According to the defendants, his 300 days started on that date and expired on September 25, 2024. They assert that he filed his ACRD (Arizona Civil Rights Division) charge on January 9, 2025, and his EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) charge on January 22, 2025. Accordingly, the defendants argue that the claim must be dismissed for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies.

The court does not agree. Assuming without deciding that Grossenbach’s Title VII charge accrued on November 30, 2023, when he was told his contract would not be renewed, the start of the limitation period was postponed under the doctrines of estoppel and equitable tolling.

“Equitable tolling focuses on whether there was excusable delay by the plaintiff: If a reasonable plaintiff would not have known of the existence of a possible claim within the limitations period, then equitable tolling will serve to extend the statute of limitations for filing suit until the plaintiff can gather what information he needs.” “Equitable estoppel, on the other hand, focuses primarily on actions taken by the defendant to prevent a plaintiff from filing suit, sometimes referred to as ‘fraudulent concealment.'”

In his Complaint, Grossenbach describes when and how he was informed that his teaching contract would not be renewed:

In November of 2023, … Grossenbach was told that “the University had decided to hire a full-time faculty member to teach [his] ethics course instead of an adjunct professor.” Grossenbach initially believed the proffered explanation, but he later became skeptical. Consequently, he “submitted a public records request for documents and emails associated with the University’s decision to not renew [his] teaching contract.”

Grossenbach later saw that “the University had posted an advertisement soliciting resumes for two adjunct professor positions at the School of Government & Public Policy to teach ethics, which [he] was well qualified to teach and had been teaching prior to his unlawful termination.” It appeared that the University was not hiring a full-time faculty member to teach these courses as he had been told.

Over the next seven months, Grossenbach sent a number of messages to the University seeking a substantive response to his public records request. Eventually he retained legal counsel, who sent the University a demand letter requesting the records. Grossenbach finally received the records on July 26, 2024, after what he calls “a 239-day campaign of delay and deception.” The records contain no negative performance reviews, but they do contain three anonymous complaints. Those complaints accused Grossenbach of “creat[ing] a hostile environment for transgender and LGBTQ students” in connection with his SaveCFSD activities, among other things. Grossenbach asserts that “[t]he furnished public records revealed emails which contain evidence of Defendants’ religious discrimination, retaliation, and [his] unlawful termination from the University.”

Taking the allegations in the plaintiff’s Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the court concludes that a reasonably prudent person would not have known of the existence of his claims until July 26, 2024, when he received the documents pursuant to his public records request. Prior to that date, Grossenbach would have known what happened but not why it happened. And without knowing why it happened, he would not have known that an “unlawful employment practice [had] occurred” and could not have raised a meaningful administrative charge. The limitation period was tolled until Grossenbach received his employment documents. See, e.g., Sterrett v. Mabus (S.D. Cal. 2013) (“Because the [First Amended Complaint’s] factual allegations suggest that Sterrett did not realize the employment decision was the result of gender discrimination until her discovery of the similarly situated male in July 2009, the Court finds tolling is sufficiently pled.”).

Furthermore, Grossenbach presents allegations from which one may conclude that the defendants took actions to prevent Grossenbach from discovering his claims by slow-walking his public records request and by falsely telling him that his contract would not be renewed because the University was going to hire a full-time faculty member to teach those classes. Taking the allegations in the Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the court finds that the defendants knew the true circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action and falsely represented them to Grossenbach intending that he rely on those false representations.  The court further finds that Grossenbach was ignorant of the true facts and reasonably relied on the defendants’ representations to his detriment….

The court also concluded that Grossenbach’s federal constitutional claims could proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment (which provides considerable state sovereign immunity against money damages), because he seeks a declaratory judgment against state officers and reinstatement to his position, which isn’t precluded by the Eleventh Amendment.

Mathew D. Staver, Horatio G. Mihet, Daniel J. Schmid, and Avery B. Hill (Liberty Counsel) represent Grossenbach.