United States: Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Employer In Title VII And Title IX Retaliation Case

Executive Summary:

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Burton v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer in a Title VII and Title IX retaliation case. The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence of an employer action which met the requirements for a "materially adverse" employment action protected by Title IX. The Seventh Circuit also found that the plaintiff failed to meet the "but for" causation requirement for a retaliation claim under Title VII.

Background of the Case

In 2009, plaintiff Sabina Burton began working as a "tenure-track" professor at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville in the criminal justice department. Burton was promoted to associate professor in January 2012.

In October 2012, a female student complained to Burton about a perceived incident of sexual harassment by a male professor. The next day, Burton contacted the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Elizabeth Throop, about the student's complaint. Burton next contacted the chair of the criminal justice department, Thomas Caywood, about the student's complaint. Caywood addressed the complaint and subsequently issued a memo to the department directing that all student complaints about faculty be brought to him, which represented a change in policy. At a later faculty meeting, Caywood explained he made the change because someone took a student complaint outside the department. Thereafter, Burton perceived that Caywood acted less collegially towards her.

Burton also claimed that Throop and Caywood started withdrawing support for the cybersecurity curriculum she was working on, although Caywood had signed a grant application for the curriculum several months before, which was denied by the donor. A smaller grant application from another donor was later approved for the cybersecurity curriculum.

Caywood failed to respond to Burton on a request for a meeting to discuss the grant process in November 2012. Throop and Caywood also had issues with the wording of a press release prepared by the donor about the awarded grant, and Caywood, for the first time, confronted Burton about inaccuracies in two websites she prepared for the proposed cybersecurity curriculum. Press release language was eventually approved, and Burton appeared at a public program to receive the grant, which was attended by the University's provost.

In January 2013 Burton applied for tenure, which was approved in March 2013. Caywood voted in favor of tenure for Burton despite his initial opposition. Caywood then stepped down as chair of the department and was replaced by Michael Dalecki.

In August 2013, Burton filed a charge of discrimination with the state human rights agency claiming sex discrimination and retaliation, among other things. Thereafter, Dalecki and others pressured Burton to drop the charge, telling Burton that she could not expect to be promoted to dean or department chair if she continued with her charge.

In April 2014, Burton filed a federal lawsuit claiming sex discrimination and retaliation. Burton also filed an EEOC charge in October 2014. A few days after filing the EEOC charge, Throop sent a "letter of direction" to Burton setting out seven events of "inappropriate behavior" by Burton. The letter also set forth "five specific directions" for Burton to follow, but Burton declined to follow the directions, claiming that Throop "mischaracterized the facts." Thereafter, Throop filed a complaint with the Board of Regents against Burton requesting a formal letter of reprimand. In December 2014, Throop accused Burton of cancelling class without approval, which Burton rebutted after she sought the cooperation of her students. No discipline was issued to Burton. Burton then filed a second EEOC charge and later amended her federal court complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board in March 2016, and Burton appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision

The Court of Appeals began its analysis by reviewing the essential elements for a claim of retaliation under Title VII and Title IX, which are the same. On this point the Seventh Circuit stated:

The elements of those claims are the same: Burton must produce enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that (1) she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) the Board took a materially adverse action against her; and (3) there existed a but-for causal connection between the two. Milligan v. Bd. of Trs., 686 F.3d 378, 388 (7th Cir. 2012); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013) (causation standard).

First, the Court of Appeals held that it would not consider facts Burton inserted into her arguments for the first time on appeal. The Court stated that Burton's failure to raise certain facts before the district court in her opposition to the motion for summary judgment precluded her from relying on them on appeal.

Next, the Seventh Circuit considered the merits of Burton's Title IX retaliation claim. Because the Board conceded that Burton's report of the student's complaint amounted to protected activity, the Court focused its inquiry on whether the two adverse actions asserted by Burton before the district court were "materially adverse" i.e. "(1) the supposed criticisms of Burton after she reported the note; and (2) the apparent withdrawal of support for Burton's cybersecurity initiative." Under established precedent, "an adverse action is one that a reasonable employee would find to be materially adverse such that the employee would be dissuaded from engaging in the protected activity." [Citations omitted]. The Court of Appeals noted that not all bad experiences in the workplace are actionable such as "those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience." [quoting] Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). Applying the standard to the facts, the Seventh Circuit found that the two adverse actions asserted by Burton in the district court were not materially adverse actions. The Court noted that Caywood did not directly criticize Burton with regard to her handling of the student complaint, and his issuance of a new policy, even if it could be construed as an "implicit reprimand," was insufficient to meet the standard. Moreover, the Court of Appeals stated that no reprimand or a lack of collegiality by Caywood resulted in any employment consequences for Burton, noting that Burton received tenure within a few months of the incident. The Court also rejected Burton's argument with regard to the cybersecurity program, noting that the press release language was eventually approved with modification after some initial legitimate concerns were expressed, Caywood had concerns about inaccurate information on the websites, and Burton received a grant at a public ceremony attended by University officials. The Court concluded that summary judgment was properly granted by the district court on Burton's Title IX retaliation claim.

Finally, the Court of Appeals turned to address Burton's Title VII retaliation claim, noting that Burton had engaged in protected activity by filing administrative charges and a lawsuit and noting the Board's concession that Burton was subjected to materially adverse employment actions, i.e. Throop's letter and complaint to the Board that sought a formal reprimand. The Court also noted that Burton asserted two other adverse actions, namely the pressure to drop her administrative charges and Throop's threat of disciplinary action for Burton for allegedly cancelling class without approval. However, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the complained-of conduct, "unfulfilled threats," was not actionable because Burton suffered no injury. The Court concluded its analysis by finding that the Board had offered legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for Throop's conduct and that Burton had failed to offer sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of pretext. Thus, summary judgment was proper as to Burton's Title VII retaliation claim.

In sum, while the Court found that Burton may have felt that she was treated unfairly, the Court noted that Burton was granted tenure, was recognized in a public ceremony for the grant she received, and that Throop sought an increase in salary for Burton after she filed her administrative charge. Consequently, the record did not support her claims of retaliation under Title VII or Title IX.

Employer's Bottom Line:

Retaliation claims remain a constant threat for employers, particularly in situations where current employees have pending administrative claims or lawsuits. While employers often feel as if they are "walking on egg shells" when dealing with litigious employees, it is important to hold such employees to workplace standards and performance expectations. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Burton illustrates that positive employment actions following protected activity can mitigate actions that could be construed as retaliatory. Moreover, every workplace incident that is subjectively perceived by the employee as unfair does not rise to the level of a materially adverse action without some concrete negative impact on the employee's terms and conditions of employment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions