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.