UK law professor Ramsi Woodcock’s lawsuits against university officials continue in state and federal court

A University of Kentucky law professor who was removed from teaching duties more than a year ago is now pursuing legal claims that span both Kentucky state court and federal court, according to a report published Tuesday by Kentucky Lantern. The litigation centers on professor Ramsi Woodcock, who has accused University of Kentucky officials of actions connected to his removal from teaching and his relationship with the university’s law school leadership. The report says Woodcock’s cases, which have developed over time, now include filings in multiple jurisdictions rather than a single proceeding. In the most recent development described by Kentucky Lantern, Woodcock filed a federal lawsuit last month naming Judge Gregory VanTatenhove, the incoming dean of the University of Kentucky College of Law, along with UK President Eli Capilouto, Provost Robert DiPaola, and the university itself. The case was filed in federal court and is described as ongoing as of publication. Kentucky Lantern also reports that Woodcock’s federal filing is part of a broader set of lawsuits that are pending in both state and federal courts. Taken together, the coverage indicates the disputes have reached multiple court calendars and legal frameworks, which can affect timelines for hearings, discovery, and any potential rulings on jurisdiction or procedure. The report places the story’s developments in a Frankfort context, reflecting the statewide attention paid to University of Kentucky decisions involving faculty employment and university governance, particularly when claims move beyond internal review and into court. Because the court record details and specific legal claims were not reproduced in full in the report summary, several aspects of the lawsuits are not specified in the available material. Those include what remedies Woodcock is seeking, what exact conduct is alleged in each case, and whether the defendants have filed motions to dismiss or other procedural responses in either the state or federal proceedings. The next procedural steps for the parties will depend on federal and state court scheduling, including whether judges set early motion hearings, require initial disclosures, or address threshold issues such as standing, timeliness, or the scope of the claims. Until those matters are resolved in court, the status of the disputes will remain defined by pending filings rather than final outcomes.