SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (LN) — U.S. District Judge Colleen R. Lawless on Wednesday denied in part Lincoln Land Community College’s motion to dismiss a Black professor’s Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims, providing substantive guidance on the pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs in employment cases.
The court granted the plaintiff, Alonzo C. DeCarlo, leave to file a second amended complaint to cure a procedural deficiency regarding his exhaustion of administrative remedies, but allowed his substantive discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing his constructive discharge claim.
DeCarlo, a probationary faculty member who taught in-person and online courses over seven academic semesters, alleged that Lincoln Land Community College subjected him to discriminatory treatment based on his race and his engagement with protected activities, ultimately forcing him to resign.
Specifically, DeCarlo contended that the college denied him materials explaining its evaluation standards, subjected his course to an audit following a student complaint, and mischaracterized his conduct regarding a "syllabus issue" as insubordination.
He alleged that after he raised concerns of racial discrimination at a meeting attended by his union representative, the Dean of Social Sciences and Business, and the Vice President of Academic Services, promised follow-up meetings did not occur and administrative scrutiny intensified.
DeCarlo further claimed the college denied him tenure based entirely on his online teaching, despite limited written evaluations and his repeated efforts to obtain guidance, noting that "no intervening performance deficiencies were identified."
Judge Lawless ruled that DeCarlo satisfied Rule 8(a)’s pleading requirements for his race discrimination claim by alleging that similarly situated non-Black faculty members received student complaints during the relevant period but were not subjected to course audits, heightened scrutiny, or adverse evaluative action.
"The complaint plainly states that Plaintiff, a Black man, was subjected to adverse action, including 'selective audits, heightened scrutiny, withholding of evaluation standards, mischaracterization of conduct, and denial of tenure,' and provides a basis to plausibly infer those actions were connected to his race," Lawless wrote.
Regarding the retaliation claim, the court found that DeCarlo adequately alleged he engaged in protected activity by alerting college administrators to his concerns about racial discrimination of his union representative.
Lawless rejected the college’s argument that DeCarlo failed to identify specific administrators involved in the retaliatory conduct, noting that notice pleading does not require a plaintiff to identify all facts supporting his claim, especially when those facts are of the defendant.
The court also found that DeCarlo sufficiently alleged a causal connection between his protected activity and the denial of tenure, citing the timing of the denial shortly after his complaints and an "immediate shift in administrative behavior."
However, Lawless ruled that DeCarlo failed to allege a constructive discharge, finding that his allegations that his continued employment was "objectively unreasonable" and that "resignation was the only viable option" were conclusory and did not indicate that a firing was an imminent and inevitable event.
The court granted DeCarlo 21 days to file a second amended complaint to cure the deficiency regarding his exhaustion of administrative remedies, warning that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.
DeCarlo is proceeding pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.