A dispute over alleged discriminatory treatment, retaliation, and wrongful termination has led to a legal complaint against a major public law school. The case centers on claims that an administrator was targeted for his race and age, subjected to repeated investigations after raising concerns about financial practices, and ultimately dismissed in violation of his rights.
The complaint was filed by Clifford Delroy Dawkins, Jr., through the Law Offices of Roosevelt Jean in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 7, 2026. Named as defendants are Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Rutgers Law School; Dean Johanna Bond; Vice Dean Shani King; Professor Charles Auffant; and several unnamed individuals.
According to the filing, Dawkins served as Assistant Dean & Director of the Minority Student Program (MSP) at Rutgers Law School’s Newark campus from April 2021 until his termination in January 2026. He alleges that during his tenure he was the only Black male administrator at the law school for most of his time there. Dawkins states that he was recruited following a national search and had previously worked in higher education administration at several universities.
The complaint outlines Dawkins’ leadership achievements with MSP: increased student enrollment, high graduation rates, fundraising success, positive performance evaluations from supervisors including then Interim Co-Dean Rose Cuison-Villazor, and external recognitions for both himself and the program. Despite these accomplishments, Dawkins claims he faced obstacles regarding salary parity and promotion promises that were not fulfilled.
Central to Dawkins’ allegations is his contention that after objecting to what he describes as misappropriation of donor-restricted funds—specifically proceeds from MSP’s annual gala events—he became subject to intensified scrutiny by Dean Bond. He asserts that $20,000 from the 2023 gala was diverted without notice or return despite objections. “At the time the Dean Dawkins objected to the diversion of funds from the Rutgers University Minority Student Program,” the complaint reads, “he reasonably believed that such conduct constituted violations of law…governing the stewardship and use of charitable and donor-restricted funds.” Dawkins also cites various statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act; 42 U.S.C. §1983; among others.
Dawkins further alleges repeated investigations into his outside work activities as a practicing attorney—activities which he says were approved by prior deans—and claims these probes were selectively applied only to him while similar activities by other administrators went unexamined. He contends this amounted to disparate treatment based on race and age.
The complaint describes escalating conflicts with faculty members such as Professor Auffant over admissions policies for MSP participants and broader disagreements about program direction. It details instances where Dawkins says he experienced ageist remarks from colleagues such as being told “you’re too young to understand you need to kiss the ring.”
Dawkins reports that after multiple internal complaints about discrimination and hostile work environment—including discussions with Vice Dean King—his relationship with senior leadership deteriorated further. He asserts that following four separate investigations (none resulting in findings against him), mass communications were sent out by Dean Bond and Professor Auffant announcing his immediate termination on grounds he says were false: “Defendants Bond and Auffant…made or caused to be made false and defamatory statement[s]…that Dean Dawkins had engaged in inappropriate interactions with…students…and some unspecified form of financial malfeasance.” The filing states these statements were knowingly false.
Following his dismissal in January 2026—while he was discussing paternity leave arrangements—Dawkins claims he suffered medical consequences including anxiety and depression requiring professional care. He also notes differences in how terminations were communicated compared to other staff members who are not Black or under forty years old.
After exhausting administrative remedies including filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 21, 2026—which resulted in a Notice of Right to Sue issued March 6—the plaintiff initiated this suit seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief (including reinstatement), compensatory damages for lost wages/benefits/emotional distress/reputational harm/punitive damages/costs/attorney fees/interests/and any other appropriate relief.
The complaint documents attempts by Dawkins to appeal internally through Rutgers’ Problem Solving Procedure under Policy 60.4.4 but alleges procedural irregularities denied him due process protections during those proceedings: “Despite Dean Dawkins’ express desire to have a representative with him for Step 1…Ms. Dellatore denied Dean Dawkins the same.” Ultimately, it states that Dean Bond affirmed her own decision to terminate him after reviewing materials submitted through this process.
Attorneys representing Clifford Delroy Dawkins Jr. are listed as Law Offices of Roosevelt Jean. The case is identified as Civil Action No.: 2:26-cv-02392.
Source: 226cv02392_Dawkins_Jr_v_Rutgers_The_State_Univeristy_of_New_Jersey_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf