A Penn State Extension educator specializing in the science of winemaking has filed a federal lawsuit against the university, alleging she was twice denied a promotion for failing to conform to its specific views on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The lawsuit claims the university's promotion criteria violate her First Amendment rights by compelling ideological expression.
Molly Kelly, an enology educator since 2018, initiated legal action this month in the U.S. Middle District Court against the Penn State Extension School, university president Neeli Bendapudi, and a senior administrator. The complaint argues that her career advancement was unfairly tied to adopting the university's preferred DEI ideology.
Key Takeaways
- Molly Kelly, a Penn State enology educator, claims she was denied promotion in 2024 and 2025 due to her views on diversity.
- The lawsuit alleges that the university's DEI-based promotion criteria violate her First Amendment rights against compelled speech.
- A review committee reportedly questioned if Kelly's work with LGBTQ and Greek Orthodox business owners qualified as sufficient diversity outreach.
- Kelly is seeking to have her promotion reconsidered under viewpoint-neutral standards and for the court to declare the DEI requirements unconstitutional.
Lawsuit Details Promotion Denials
The core of the lawsuit centers on Molly Kelly's applications for promotion to Extension educator level 5, a senior professional rank, in both 2024 and 2025. According to the complaint, both applications were rejected. After the first denial, Kelly says she revised her application materials to address feedback from the review committee.
However, the promotion was denied a second time. The lawsuit contends that the denials were not based on her professional qualifications or performance in her field of enology, but on her perceived lack of commitment to Penn State's specific framework for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The legal action names Penn State Extension School, President Neeli Bendapudi, and Jeffrey Hyde, the associate dean and director of Penn State Extension, as defendants. When contacted, the university maintained its policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
A Dispute Over the Meaning of Diversity
A central point of conflict outlined in the court filings involves the university's evaluation of Kelly's outreach efforts. As part of her professional duties, Kelly provided technical expertise and site visits to various businesses, including those owned by members of the LGBTQ and Greek Orthodox communities.
Kelly argues that this work constitutes a tangible effort to engage with diverse populations. However, the lawsuit states the review committee dismissed these efforts. Court documents indicate the committee questioned how providing technical expertise to these specific groups qualified as receiving diversity training.
What is Enology?
Enology is the science and study of all aspects of wine and winemaking. An enology educator, like Molly Kelly, provides expert guidance to vineyards and wineries on topics ranging from grape cultivation and fermentation to bottling and quality control. Her role directly supports the state's agricultural and business communities.
The complaint argues that the committee's rejection of her work reveals a narrow, ideologically specific definition of which groups are considered “diverse.” Kelly contends her outreach was rejected because it did not align with the university's prescribed orthodoxy.
Accusations of Compelled Ideology
The lawsuit goes further, claiming the university's feedback suggests it was seeking more than just participation in professional development. It alleges that demands for her to demonstrate “an effort to learn” and the dismissal of her work as merely “checking the box” amounted to a requirement for an ideological conversion.
The complaint asserts that the university was demanding “a confession of genuine ideological conversion, not merely participation in professional development activities.”
Kelly's suit argues this pressure to adopt and express specific viewpoints as a condition of employment is a violation of her constitutional rights. She states in her complaint that the lawsuit was filed “to vindicate her constitutional rights and to restore the freedom of thought that must prevail in America’s public universities.”
University Promotion Criteria Under Fire
The legal challenge takes direct aim at Penn State's official promotion criteria. According to the complaint, the university's guidelines show that DEI-related requirements become more stringent with each professional rank.
For the Level 5 position Kelly sought, the criteria reportedly include demonstrating:
- “Robust evidence of program impact with underrepresented audiences.”
- The ability to design programs that are “culturally sensitive and relevant.”
Kelly's lawsuit argues these requirements are unconstitutional because they condition career advancement on expressing viewpoints favored by the university. She claims the denial of her promotion was a penalty for exercising her First Amendment right not to express these specific views and for instead pursuing her own approach to diversity in her work.
The lawsuit claims that the ideological requirements imposed by the university are not reasonably related to the professional qualifications necessary to be an effective enology educator.
Legal Goals and Potential Impact
Through her lawsuit, Molly Kelly is seeking several outcomes. She has requested that the court order Penn State to reconsider her promotion application using criteria that are viewpoint-neutral and constitutionally sound.
She is also seeking unspecified damages to compensate for lost wages, benefits, emotional distress, and the violation of her constitutional rights. More broadly, she asks the court for a declaration that Penn State’s promotion criteria are unconstitutional insofar as they require faculty to express an ideological commitment to DEI principles.
The case is now in the early stages within the U.S. Middle District Court. Its outcome could have significant implications for how public universities nationwide structure their hiring and promotion policies, particularly concerning diversity and free speech on campus.