Azhar v. University of Chicago
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/4/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMEENA AZHAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 10390
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
With the University of Chicago (the "University") having been substituted for its
mistakenly named Board of Trustees as the defendant in this action brought by Sameena Azhar
("Azhar"), the University has now completed the briefing on its motion to dismiss Count III of
Azhar's Second Amended Complaint (referred to here simply as the "Complaint"). Count III
purports to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the Title VII prohibition against
discrimination in employment.
Complaint ¶ 3 alleges, and the University's Answer ¶ 3 admits, (1) that Azhar is now a
doctoral candidate at the University's School of Social Service Administration and (2) that in
2015 she had been an employee at the Chicago Center for HIV Elimination. But the University
charges that Azhar has impermissibly sought to conflate those different relationships to claim
that she was the victim of retaliation so as to bring Title VII into play. This Court has reviewed
the University's motion, Azhar's Response in Opposition (the "Response") and the University's
newly-filed Reply, and it finds that the University's position prevails.
To begin with, the Reply at 2 points to several respects in which Azhar's Response
mischaracterizes -- indeed improperly rewrites -- her own allegations in the Complaint. And
when the underbrush is cleared away, the only assertedly adverse action that antedated the
termination of Azhar's employment relationship was that she "made a request for business cards
since similarly-situated white students had already been given business cards" (Complaint ¶ 9)
and that the request was not honored.
It places an undue strain on the concept of Title VII retaliation, which makes it an
unlawful employment practice by an employer to discriminate against an employee because the
latter has opposed an unlawful employment practice or has made a charge, testified or otherwise
assisted in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII, for anyone to find that
concept embraces the denial of a request for business cards. Moreover, here Azhar has not
alleged that she actually voiced a complaint to anyone about her perceived unequal treatment in
that respect, which would appear to be a necessary ingredient in a claim of retaliation (see Miller
v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997, 1008 (7th Cir. 2000)).
It should be emphasized that the University's responsive pleading is an answer, not an
effort to dismiss, Azhar's other two counts -- Count I, which charges the University with
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of Title VII, and Count II,
which invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to charge the University with discrimination based on Azhar's
race and color. This action will go forward on those claims.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: April 4, 2017
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?