Natalia Norwood has worked as a Civil Rights investigator and ADA specialist in the University of Mississippi Office of Equal Opportunity and Regulatory Compliance (EORC) since 2022. She claims she faced repeated sexual harassment by her supervisor, as well as race-based discrimination, while working in the EORC.
Norwood alleged that the harassment by her supervisor, Director of Equal Opportunity Compliance and ADA Coordinator Billy Benson, included touching her inappropriately, nonconsensual access to private photos and inappropriate sexual comments.
Norwood claimed to report Benson’s behavior to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Access and Compliance Kimberly M. DeVries in May 2024. In a lawsuit filed on July 27, Norwood alleges that DeVries encouraged her not to report Benson to the Title IX coordinator. When she requested reassignment or to no longer report to Benson, DeVries stated that would be unfair to Norwood’s coworkers, according to the lawsuit.
“I was trusting that this was going to be done correctly because I thought leadership above my department would be appalled by someone touching me inappropriately in an office that houses Title IX (enforcement),” Norwood said. “When we are an institution that has students, I was shocked. … At that moment, I said, ‘I’m going to have to file a lawsuit.’”
Norwood is suing the university, DeVries, Chief Human Resources Officer Bradley Salters, Provost Noel Wilkin and Chancellor Glenn Boyce on eight counts of sex- and race-based discrimination.
The university and its attorney Paul Watkins responded to Norwood’s lawsuit with a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2026.
DeVries and Salters declined The Daily Mississippian’s request for comment, directing questions to University of Mississippi News and Media Relations. Jacob Batte, director of news and media relations, said Benson and Wilkin will not be providing separate comments.
Norwood, the plaintiff in the case, claimed the university violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. She also asserts that the university improperly handled her ADA accommodations.
“I have a want for the institution to see the allegations that I have made against some people,” Norwood said. “I am not angry. I don’t have that in me to be angry. I want betterment.”
DeVries also serves as the executive director of EOCR. DeVries acted as Norwood’s second-line supervisor; Norwood has sued DeVries in her official and individual capacity.
However, the filing against Salters, Wilkin and Boyce was only in their official capacity.
The university’s stance
The university’s motion to dismiss argues that the lawsuit does not state a claim and should also be dismissed because DeVries is entitled to qualified immunity.
The motion to dismiss highlights the administrative requirement that a charge of discrimination must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission no more than 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action occurred.
The motion asserts that because of this timeline, any employment action that occurred before Oct. 25, 2025 should be time-barred.
“Even if Plaintiff’s placement on administrative leave was an actionable employment event in and of itself, though, Plaintiff’s own allegations reflect that decision was made on October 22, 2025, three days outside the 180-day charging period,” the motion to dismiss said. “The only action Plaintiff identifies within the applicable 180-day window is Provost Wilkin’s denial of two ‘appeals’ on January 24, 2026. These ‘denials’ do not constitute an adverse employment action.”
The motion to dismiss also claims that Norwood’s filing violates Rule Eight, which dictates that pleadings should be short, plain and concise to create simplicity and clarity, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
“Plaintiff’s Complaint is 62 pages long, and it contains 243 enumerated paragraphs, most of which contain numerous allegations,” the motion to dismiss said. “While the Complaint violates Rule 8 by virtue of its length alone, the nature of the Plaintiff’s allegation also clearly violates the Rule purpose, as many of the allegations do not advance her claim.”
Norwood’s current situation
At the time of publication, Norwood is still on restrictive administrative leave.
“Plaintiff remains on restrictive paid administrative leave without a defined return-to-work plan, despite her repeated requests for one,” the lawsuit said. “Her campus and systems access remain restricted, and she currently reports to (Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs) Shawnboda Mead rather than to DeVries or Benson. Plaintiff has consistently requested to continue working in a comparable role; UM has not provided that placement.”
Norwood is a University of Mississippi School of Law alumna, graduating with her Juris Doctor degree in 2016. She also serves as an adjunct professor for criminal justice and legal studies.
By suing the university and select personnel, Norwood wants to inspire change and prevent what she claims to have endured from happening to anyone else, particularly students.
“I don’t want this to happen to anyone else, and I don’t see how anyone else could change this,” Norwood said.
Alleged instances of discrimination
Norwood alleges that several instances of harassment related to sex or race that she reported to DeVries went ignored, according to the lawsuit.
One instance of reported neglect provided in the lawsuit included a witness verbally harassing Norwood with racially motivated insults, she alleged.
“In a separate interview, a white student employee (‘Respondent G’) stood over Plaintiff at her desk and repeatedly used the full racial slur while describing a family member’s leadership role in the Ku Klux Klan, after Plaintiff called him in to discuss a report against him,” the lawsuit said. “Plaintiff alleges she felt physically threatened and summoned a colleague for support.”
The lawsuit states that when Norwood reported the situation to DeVries, stating that she had asked the student not to say the full racial slur, DeVries allegedly responded, “I hope you said it nicer than that,” and that the university’s general counsel was “big on First Amendment.”
Norwood described a racially hostile work environment in the lawsuit. She alleged that she was racially tokenized in case assignments, being assigned burdensome, racially fraught cases without support. She also claimed that DeVries dismissed racial hostility directed at Norwood and that white respondents were protected from accountability.
Dr. Nicole Turner, a staff physician with University Employee Health Services, wrote a letter recommending the university remove Norwood from her current workplace due to worsening symptoms of depression, anxiety and acute psychiatric distress on March 19, 2025.
“I had an increase in depression and anxiety,” Norwood said. “I didn’t really have an issue with anxiety before, so I had two new medications that I had never taken before in my life, and that was literally just to survive in-office.”
Norwood transitions to remote work
Norwood requested an accommodation for interim full-time remote work and a transfer or reassignment to a similar position on campus on March 20, 2025.
“(Norwood) contacted … Mead and explained that she needed another position, including through the ADA/Section 504 accommodation process, because she believed a transfer would be safer than remaining in the same reporting structure,” the lawsuit said.
Human Resources approved Norwood’s work from home accommodation on April 7, 2025, and later extended the accommodation in July 2025.
Notably, Norwood also requested to be reassigned to a new role at the university. However, that process has not occurred. Salters attributed the delay to ongoing investigations into Norwood’s workplace discrimination claims on April 17, 2025.
However, Norwood also attests in her lawsuit that David Whitcomb, the university’s chief legal officer, noted that an investigation of discrimination and an ADA accommodation request are two separate matters.
“Whitcomb stated that he viewed ‘an ADA accommodation request and (Family and Medical Leave Act) issues’ as ‘separate from the investigation of discrimination,’” the lawsuit said. “He further stated that the ADA accommodation process has been ongoing and that FMLA issues ‘did not need to be held pending the outcome of the investigation.’ Whitcomb copied Salters, stated that he believed Salters was aware of the relevant FMLA issue and invited Salters’ Human Resources judgment concerning timing.”
While working from home, Norwood filed a formal complaint against Benson under Title IX on Sept. 10, 2025. In her filing, Norwood requested supportive measures to minimize her contact with Benson and DeVries. She also requested punitive or disciplinary measures against Benson.
After this filing, the university placed Norwood on restrictive paid administrative leave, while also limiting her access to the campus and university systems, on Oct. 22, 2025.
“The package imposed exclusion from campus; termination of access to University email, Box and other systems, including systems containing evidence Plaintiff needed to pursue her claims; loss of adjunct-teaching work and its associated income; restrictions on library and dining access and no-contact restrictions,” the lawsuit said. “UM imposed each of these conditions unilaterally, without Plaintiff’s request and without medical justification.”
The university characterized this package as a part of the supportive measures that Norwood had filed for in her complaint against Benson. Norwood also alleges that Benson did not receive similar restrictions.
The university also denied Norwood’s request to restore her access to her university email and other university accounts on Jan. 24, 2026. After Norwood filed complaints with three separate offices on campus, Salters restored Norwood’s system access to her personal accounts on July 2, 2026.
Human Resources finds allegations “not substantiated”
Salters, the university’s chief human resources officer, signed a Summary of Findings document on Oct. 23, 2025, which outlined 18 allegations made by Norwood that were under investigation. Salters found all 18 allegations as “not substantiated.”
Notably, Salters himself was a character named in Allegation 13.
“Records confirm that you submitted a formal ADA accommodation request with medical documentation on March 20, 2025,” the Summary of Findings said. “Human Resources approved interim remote work on April 10, 2025. In an April 22 email, Mr. Salters acknowledged the delay and apologized. He confirmed that remote work was approved while the broader job transfer request was under review.”
Norwood alleged in her lawsuit that Salters’ position as both a person mentioned in an allegation and as the person signing the Summary of Findings is a conflict of interest.
“On information and belief, (Grand River Solutions, Inc.) prepared or materially contributed to the October 23, 2025 Summary of Findings,” the lawsuit said. “Salters — a subject of Allegation 13 — nevertheless signed and personally transmitted the document resolving the same allegation. This is not a generalized suspicion; it is a specific, identifiable conflict of interest: the person whose own conduct was at issue in Allegation 13 approved the finding that cleared him.”
Grand River Solutions, Inc. is an external investigator the university hired to look into Norwood’s allegations against EORC.
Norwood appealed the Summary of Findings to Provost Wilkin on Nov. 7, 2025, and also submitted a Mississippi Public Records Act appeal on Dec. 19, 2025.
Both appeals went unaddressed by the university, until they were assigned an attorney on Jan. 21, 2026. Norwood notified the university that her appeals were assigned to an attorney on Jan. 23, 2026. Wilkin denied both appeals 19 hours later.
“Two appeals — one dormant for 76 days, the other for 36 days — were resolved and denied within 19 hours of Wilkin’s actual notice that Plaintiff’s external OCR complaint had reached the attorney-assignment stage,” the lawsuit said. “Close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action is itself evidence from which a reasonable factfinder may infer retaliatory action.”
Norwood’s wish is to return to work on the University of Mississippi campus in a supportive environment free from harassment and discrimination. She is frustrated with the many obstacles preventing her return to the office and to teaching face-to-face classes.
“I have no autonomy, and I have a deep desire to do my job,” Norwood said.
