Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles has left one claim standing in a former Duke researcher’s lawsuit, and it is the one that goes straight to a jury. The court has ruled that jurors will decide whether Duke punished the scientist after she reported sexual harassment and an assault in 2020. The ruling trims the case to a single Title VII retaliation claim against the university and sets a short jury trial for the June 2026 civil term. At issue is whether a research misconduct review that led to retractions and the end of the researcher’s Duke employment was standard oversight or retaliation for filing the complaint.
Judge Keeps Retaliation Claim Alive
In a March 4 memorandum, Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles denied Duke’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation theory, finding that the timing and handling of the misconduct inquiry could allow a jury to infer causation, according to Justia. The opinion narrowed the case to that lone Title VII count and set a three-day trial for the June 2026 civil term, along with a detailed schedule of pretrial deadlines.
What Mulugu Says
Dr. Brahmajothi Mulugu, who has said she spent about 25 years at Duke, alleges she reported sexual harassment and an assault by a supervisor in late February 2020 and that a data integrity inquiry began within days, an investigation she says was then used as a weapon that ended her employment, as reported by The News & Observer. Mulugu’s filings contend the inquiry led to requests that her Department of Defense grants be terminated and to the retraction of several papers, outcomes she says have made it difficult for her to find new work.
Papers Retracted and a Departed Co-author
Multiple 2020 articles co-authored by Mulugu and her then-supervisor were later retracted; the academic record and reporting show Military Medicine items from that issue carry formal retraction notices and a separate 2020 Brain Sciences article was later retracted on PubMed. Those retractions, and the role of her coauthor Dr. Mohamed Abou-Donia, who left Duke in 2020 and whose passing in 2023 has been noted by professional groups, are part of the factual dispute; see the journals’ retraction notices, the PubMed record and an obituary posted by ASPET.
Duke’s Defense
Duke has argued in court filings that lab leaders raised concerns about data practices in the fall of 2019 and that those concerns “intensified” in late February 2020, around the same time Mulugu says she complained, and that the misconduct review was not retaliatory, according to reporting by Bloomberg Law. The university has emphasized that objective documents and internal timelines show the review was prompted by recordkeeping questions, not by a desire to punish someone for bringing a complaint.
Trial Timeline
The court’s order lays out strict deadlines for witness lists, exhibit disclosures and motions in limine and schedules a May 21, 2026, pretrial conference ahead of the June trial; the judge warned that failure to meet the timetable could lead to exclusion of evidence, according to Justia. The judge also suggested three days should be sufficient for opening statements, evidence and closing arguments, underscoring the compressed window both sides will have to tell their story.
Why This Matters Under the Law
Retaliation claims under Title VII turn on whether protected activity, such as reporting sexual harassment, prompted materially adverse action, and courts often allow juries to weigh causation when the timing between a complaint and adverse steps is tight. The EEOC’s guidance notes that adverse actions do not need to be dramatic if they would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining, a legal backdrop the court cited in allowing Mulugu’s theory to proceed; see the EEOC.
The case now moves toward a June 2026 jury date that both sides say will answer whether a messy lab record and a string of retractions were the byproduct of proper oversight or the consequence of retaliation after an employee reported abuse. As the litigation proceeds, jurors will be asked to sort through emails, committee notes and the timing of investigations to decide whether Mulugu’s complaint triggered the review that derailed her career, as reported by The News & Observer.
