Former Jackson State University President Marcus Thompson was sued by a longtime university employee who alleged that she was passed over for a senior position because of her sex. Although a federal judge allowed one part of Linda Rush’s case to continue in 2025, the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed in June 2026 without a public trial judgment establishing that Thompson had discriminated against her.
The case is titled Rush v. Thompson and was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Who Filed the Lawsuit?
Linda Rush filed the lawsuit on January 7, 2025. According to her complaint, she had worked at Jackson State University for nearly 25 years and held several leadership positions.
In August 2023, Rush was promoted from executive director of admissions to interim vice president for enrollment management. She claimed that she performed successfully in the interim role and remained interested in receiving the position permanently.
Marcus Thompson became Jackson State’s president later that year. In January 2024, he selected Kylon Alford-Windfield as vice president for enrollment management and returned Rush to her former position.
What Did Linda Rush Allege?
Rush alleged that the vice-president position was not publicly posted before Alford-Windfield was selected. She also claimed Thompson knew that she wanted the permanent position.
Her complaint described Alford-Windfield as a man under 40 with considerably less higher-education experience. Rush maintained that her longer employment history, qualifications and performance in the interim position made her a stronger candidate.
She further alleged that Thompson had praised her work while announcing the leadership change. However, about two months later, on March 21, 2024, Rush was informed that her employment was being terminated.
According to the court’s description of her allegations, Alford-Windfield complimented her work when delivering the termination decision but did not provide a reason for it.
These statements represented Rush’s side of the dispute. They were not final findings that Thompson or the university acted unlawfully.
What Legal Claims Were Filed?
Rush brought claims involving both age and sex discrimination. She relied on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Section 1983, which permits claims against government officials for alleged violations of constitutional rights.
She sought compensation and appointment to the vice-president position. Thompson and Jackson State asked the court to dismiss the case.
Their arguments included sovereign immunity, failure to complete the required administrative process on time and failure to state a legally sufficient discrimination claim. Thompson also argued that qualified immunity protected him from personal liability.
Why Were Some Claims Dismissed?
On August 28, 2025, District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed Rush’s Title VII and age-discrimination claims.
Before suing under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, an employee generally must file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable deadline.
Rush filed her EEOC charge on September 18, 2024. The court concluded that her challenge to the January employment decision was filed too late. Her charge concerning the March termination was submitted on the 181st day, one day beyond the 180-day deadline applied by the court.
The judge also dismissed the Section 1983 claim against Jackson State and the claim seeking official-capacity financial damages from Thompson.
Why Did One Claim Continue?
The judge refused to dismiss Rush’s Section 1983 sex-discrimination claim against Thompson personally.
At that early stage, the court was required to treat Rush’s properly pleaded factual allegations as true. The judge found that her claims about her qualifications, experience, interim service and replacement by a reportedly less-experienced male candidate were sufficient to proceed.
The decision did not establish that sex discrimination occurred. It only found that Rush had alleged enough facts to move beyond a dismissal motion.
The court also rejected Thompson’s qualified-immunity defence at that stage. Qualified immunity may protect public officials from personal liability, but the judge concluded that Rush’s allegations, if eventually proved, could show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
How Did the Lawsuit End?
The public federal docket lists the case as terminated on June 26, 2026, following an order dismissing it. The readily available docket summary does not describe a trial verdict or a judgment finding Thompson liable.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that Rush won the discrimination case or that Thompson was ordered to pay damages. The earlier ruling merely allowed a limited constitutional claim to continue while dismissing the other major claims.
Thompson had already resigned as Jackson State president in May 2025. The lawsuit remains notable because it survived an important dismissal challenge before ending in 2026, but it did not produce a publicly reported court finding that the former president committed employment discrimination.