Peng Guo v. Michigan Tech University: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-1891

Case Summary:Docket Number: 24-1891Peng Guo v. Michigan Tech University arises from a pregnancy discrimination suit brought by Dr. Peng Guo, a former accounting professor at Michigan Technological University, who alleges that the university discriminated against her in violation of Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).In the lower court, Dr. Guo filed suit in January 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (case no. 2:21‑cv‑00009), alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and pregnancy. After pretrial rulings that narrowed her claims, she proceeded to a jury trial on September 9, 2024 solely on her pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII and ELCRA. She testified that, after announcing her pregnancy and taking maternity leave, MTU required her to perform service work while on leave, cancelled a key research database subscription and a fellowship with its stipend, searched her office without permission, issued unwarranted performance criticisms, and awarded her the lowest raise in her college upon her return, ultimately leading to her resignation. Following a three‑day trial, the jury found in her favor on the ELCRA pregnancy discrimination claim only, awarding her 5,000 dollars in economic damages and 200,000 dollars in emotional distress damages (total 205,000 dollars), and found for MTU on the Title VII claim.The present appeal, docketed as No. 24‑1891 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is an employment civil rights case (nature of suit 3442 Civil Rights: Jobs) arising from that Western District of Michigan judgment. It is styled Peng Guo v. Michigan Tech University, et al., is linked to district court case 2:21‑cv‑00009, and concerns her discrimination claim, with argument time set at 15 minutes per side. The case was argued in the Sixth Circuit on January 28, 2026, before a panel including Judges Gilman, Griffin, and Murphy, and commentary indicates that the appeal focuses on whether Dr. Guo’s pregnancy‑bias win should be sustained.