A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a lawsuit filed by a University of Texas at Austin professor who claimed he was retaliated against by his department chairwoman for saying the department discriminated against Hispanics.

Alberto Martinez, who is Hispanic and a tenured professor in the university’s history department, informed the department that there was “discrimination” against and “marginalization” of Hispanic employees within it, according to the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in Alberto Martinez v. University of Texas at Austin.

In response, the department chairwoman appointed Mr. Martinez to head a newly created “Equity Committee” and tasked it with creating a plan of action to help “fix inequities.”

As part of his work, Mr. Martinez created a salary report in October 2018 that said in certain instances, minority professors were paid less than their nonminority co-workers.

Mr. Martinez was then allegedly subjected to several retaliatory acts by the department chairwoman, including her creation of a new subcommittee of the Equity Committee, which was delegated many of his responsibilities, and her filing a report alleging he made anti-Semitic remarks.

Mr. Martinez sued the university alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted the university summary judgment and was overturned by a three-judge appeals court panel.

“The district court held that Martinez’s claim failed because he did not establish a causal link between his protected activity and (the department head’s) retaliatory acts,” the ruling said. “We disagree with the district court’s conclusion.”

Immediately after the salary report was circulated, the department head made a comment about disbanding the Equity Committee, then restructured it, and eventually removed him from it altogether, the ruling said.

“That progression is enough for a reasonable juror to find a causal link,” the panel said, in reversing the lower court and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.