Case: Gopalan v. Allen

This case challenged a university’s alleged retaliatory closure of a federally funded research institute following a whistleblower report of grant-related embezzlement.

The Futures Institute at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) was established in 2023 with a $4.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education. It employed Ph.D. students, faculty, and staff, and conducted research on issues such as cancer and environmental pollution. In 2024, Dr. Sandeep Gopalan, Interim Vice President for Research, tenured professor, and director of the Futures Institute, alleged that he discovered the Provost and President of UMES were embezzling iPads purchased with a federal grant intended for disadvantaged minorities. He stated that he sent whistleblower letters to federal agencies, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, and the USM Board of Regents in June and September 2024, detailing the iPad scheme and other misconduct. He alleged that retaliation followed in January 2025, when the Provost attempted to terminate the admission of several Institute students. On February 27, 2025, the Provost abruptly announced the closure of the Futures Institute and the termination of its funding.

On July 28, 2025, Gopalan filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against UMES and its Provost and President; the University System of Maryland (USM) and its Chancellor; and the Director of the Office of Institutional Equity. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and were ultra vires. Gopalan sought declaratory and injunctive relief to have the court declare the defendants' actions unlawful, order them to restore funding to the Futures Institute, and reinstate him as director. He also requested that the court award substantial punitive and compensatory damages, as well as an order for the University System of Maryland to "claw back" the salaries of the individual defendants. Judge Matthew J. Maddox presides over the case. 

Gopalan alleged that the defendants’ actions violated his due process rights and constituted unlawful retaliation. He asserted that their directives were ultra vires attempts to seize control of the federal grant and that they engaged in a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He further claimed retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. As specific retaliatory acts, he alleged that the defendants tried to “steal” the Institute’s grant and, when unsuccessful, ordered its closure. He claimed the Provost falsely attributed the shutdown to “Trump Administration policies,” despite the U.S. Department of Education confirming the grant remained active.

This case is ongoing.