Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a black female who was hired as Director of Purchasing and Contract Management at the University of Illinois alleged that the University discriminated and retaliated against her based on her age, subjected her to a hostile work environment based on race and gender, and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff alleged that while employed by the University, she was scolded, told that she needed to be “less sensitive,” and was labeled as aggressive and hostile, specifically being told that she needs to “display more civil behavior.” Additionally, plaintiff alleged that she was informed she would be promoted and receive a pay raise, however, shortly after being told of her promotion, her supervisor informed her that they had missed the deadline to present the promotion to the Board of Trustees for approval. Plaintiff’s title was changed, but she did not receive a salary increase because there was purportedly “no money in the budget for the raise.” Plaintiff maintains that during this same timeframe, other non-Black employees with less experience were promoted and received salary increases without needing Board approval. Finally, plaintiff alleged pressure from supervisors to retire, telling her she needed to provide a firm retirement date by the end of the week, and subsequent continued attempts were made to coerce her into setting a date and developing a separation plan. Plaintiff allegedly complained about her supervisor’s discriminatory conduct by writing letters to defendant in June 2021, August 2021, and March 2022, though no response from defendant was noted. While plaintiff maintains that her hostile work environment claim constitutes a continuing violation, the court found that she was only able to provide three examples, noting several years without any described hostile experience in between, and thus, such conduct was not continuous. Because the alleged conduct was neither continuous or continuing and occurred in 2018 and 2020, the Court dismissed the hostile work environment claim as time barred insofar as it related to comments about her conduct and demeanor. Finding that plaintiff plausibly alleged a hostile work environment based on age, the Court reasoned that depending on how frequent, pointed, and offensive the retirement comments were (which plaintiff need not detail in her complaint) such conduct could conceivably rise to the level of a hostile work environment. However, it found no “connection” between the 2018 and 2020 events and those which allegedly took place in September of 2022, and absent a connection in time, type of hostility, and protected characteristics, dismissed both the conduct and demeanor, and age-based hostile work environment claims. Finally, the court found that plaintiff adequately stated a claim for relief based on her hostile work environment claim based on race, dependent upon how frequent, pointed, and offensive the comments about plaintiff’s demeanor were. Plaintiff’s denial of a raise can constitute a materially adverse employment action in support of her claim for retaliation. While plaintiff conceded that the comments about her behavior did not rise to the level of severe abuse, they may have been pervasive, and at this stage, plaintiff is not required to allege every instance of abuse to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part individual human resources Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, who is white, over the age of forty, and a former football coach for the University of Toledo, brought procedural due process and equal protection claims under Title VII, Title VI, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act against the University following termination of his employment. Plaintiff alleges the University discriminated against him when it replaced him with a younger, Black employee. Plaintiff asserts that prior to his termination, the University’s Athletic Director announced an intention to hire more coaches who were “representative” of current student-athletes, “meaning younger and black.” A few months later, plaintiff was accused of sexual harassment, which he contends was frivolous, false, and uncorroborated by an investigation. Subsequently, plaintiff told the proponent of the sexual harassment claim that “if my wife knew you were near me, she’d kill you” which led the coworker to file a claim of retaliation. When he was interviewed by human resources personnel, plaintiff asserted that his comment was a “joke” rather than a real threat. Notwithstanding his view that the remark did not constitute retaliation under the University’s policy and purported assurances by other University personnel that he was “definitely not getting fired or anything,” plaintiff was found responsible and terminated from his role. Plaintiff alleged that his termination by human resources staff was in service of “the University’s practice of replacing older, white employees with younger, black employees.” Plaintiff also averred that the failure to conduct a hearing prior to firing him violated the University’s Title IX policy. The court found that plaintiff plausibly pled a §1983 race discrimination claim based upon his allegations that the AD wanted to hire more representative coaching staff, and the University had replaced older, white males with younger, black employees in the AD, assistant AD, and General Counsel roles. The court also permitted his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief to proceed under Ex parte Young, reasoning that a newspaper article attributing a quote to plaintiff’s letter of separation that he “‘committed a significant and/or intentional violation’ of [the University’s] non-retaliation and standards of conduct policies” served as potential pretext for the alleged discrimination. But the court dismissed plaintiff’s due process claims, finding that he failed to plead a promise of continued employment, and noting that the Sixth Circuit has held that “repeated contract renewals do not, by themselves, create a reasonable expectation of permanent employment.” 

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former Director of Student Activities at the College of Lake County who is African American, brought race and age discrimination claims against the College and, under §1983, against his former supervisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, and one of his former subordinates, a Coordinator of Student Organizations and Programs.  Plaintiff alleged that the Dean undermined his work and then disciplined him for the failures and that the Coordinator, whom the Dean hired after working with her at a different university and who babysat his children, provided the Dean with information about Plaintiff’s activities and even directed aspects of the alleged sabotage.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims as time-barred.  It permitted his §1983 claims against both the Dean and the Coordinator to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged the personal involvement of both in the alleged Constitutional deprivation.