Seventh Circuit dismisses Title VII retaliation action brought by university employee for protesting co-workers' wearing of Chief Illiniwek t-shirts 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held the district court did not err in dismissing a Title VII retaliation claim brought by a university employee, finding the plaintiff did not show a causal connection between filing the complaint and being denied a promotion.

In Leonard v. Eastern Illinois University, 2010 WL 2077255 (7th Cir. 2010), the plaintiff, a Native American, filed the complaint with the university's civil rights office in 2005 after two of his interviewers wore Chief Illiniwek t-shirts during the interview. The interview was for a promotion to a more supervisory position and occurred the same day the University of Illinois men's basketball team was playing in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Basketball Tournament.

Plaintiff had been an outspoken advocate of Native American issues and frequently complained to EIU's student newspaper about articles and advertisements he found offensive. He was particularly outspoken on the use of "Chief Illiniwek," an image formerly used for University of Illinois athletics. He has written to the student newspaper and received news coverage on CNN on the matter. 

The employee filed a Title VII action against the university, claiming he was subjected to unlawful retaliation and passed over for promotions because of his 2005 complaint. He voluntarily resigned in 2008, stating anxiety over the Chief Illiniwek controversy as the primary reason for his resignation.

Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions prohibits employers from "discriminating against" employees who opposed actions banned under Title VII or "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. Id. at 2 (citing Martino v. MCI Communications Servs., Inc., 574 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 2009)).

An employee can establish a prima facie case under the direct proof retaliation by providing either direct or circumstantial evidence that: (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) he suffered a materially adverse action taken by the employer, and (3) there was a causal connection between the two. Id.

The district court denied plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment. Although it found that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity by filing the complaint, his failure to successfully interview for a promotion was not a materially adverse employment action.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiff did not prove a causal connection between his protected activity and being denied a promotion. Plaintiff presented no evidence to show that anyone was angered by his 2005 complaint. Also, the plaintiff could not show he was denied in retaliation of his complaint, given the standardized interviewing format and scoring consistency for the interview candidates.