Alonzo C. DeCarlo taught in-person and online courses at Lincoln Land Community College in Illinois for seven academic semesters as a probationary faculty member. He alleges the college denied him evaluation materials, subjected one of his courses to an audit after a student complaint, mischaracterized a syllabus dispute to build a disciplinary narrative of insubordination, and ultimately denied him tenure — actions he contends were driven by his race and by retaliation for raising discrimination concerns. He says he was forced to resign.
The discrimination claim turned on DeCarlo's allegation that similarly situated non-Black faculty in the same division, covered by the same collective bargaining agreement, and supervised by the same administrative chain received student complaints during the same period but were not subjected to course audits, heightened scrutiny, or adverse evaluative action, and instead retained their positions and progressed through probationary review without selective audits. Judge Colleen R. Lawless held that allegation, combined with the complaint's account of selective audits, withholding of evaluation standards, mischaracterization of conduct, and denial of tenure, was sufficient to plausibly connect the adverse actions to DeCarlo's race.
On retaliation, the court held that DeCarlo adequately alleged protected activity when, at an October 16, 2023 meeting attended by his union representative, the Dean of Social Sciences and Business, and the Vice President of Academic Services, he stated he believed the treatment he was experiencing was occurring because he is a Black man. The college argued DeCarlo could not unilaterally determine the legal significance of his own statements; the court disagreed, noting that protected activity requires only a good-faith and reasonable belief that the employee is opposing unlawful conduct.
The court also held that DeCarlo sufficiently alleged a causal connection between that protected activity and the tenure denial. His complaint alleged that promised follow-up meetings never occurred, administrative scrutiny intensified, the denial relied on reasons inconsistent with prior evaluations, no intervening performance deficiencies were identified, and the denial occurred shortly after the protected activity. The college argued the allegation that the tenure decision relied entirely on DeCarlo's online teaching undermined any causal link, but the court held the basis for the retaliation claim was readily apparent given DeCarlo's pro se status and the procedural posture.
One claim did not survive: constructive discharge. The court held that DeCarlo's allegations — that continued employment was objectively unreasonable and resignation was the only viable option — were conclusory and did not show that a firing was imminent and inevitable or that working conditions were so intolerable he was forced to quit. The tenure denial itself, however, independently qualified as a materially adverse action sufficient to sustain the retaliation claim.
The First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice on a separate threshold ground: it contained no allegation that DeCarlo filed an EEOC charge or received a right-to-sue letter, a deficiency that alone warranted dismissal. Because DeCarlo's response brief represented that he had filed a charge with the EEOC alleging race discrimination and retaliation, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed suit within 90 days, the court granted him 21 days to file a second amended complaint curing that omission and any other deficiencies identified in the opinion. Failure to refile within that window may result in dismissal with prejudice.