Abuelyaman v. Illinois State University, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24616

Abuelyaman, an Arab Muslim and Sudanese/Yemeni/Saudi descent, was a non-tenured associate professor at ISU's IT School from 2001–2006 with consistently poor evaluations.
ISU uses a three-tier ranking (assistant, associate, full) and a multi-category evaluation system (teaching, scholarly productivity, service).
The IT School's Status Committee, chaired by the director, evaluated professors with a weighted formula (teaching 50%, scholarly 40%, service 10%), adjusting for rank differences.
Dennis became IT School director in Fall 2004 and shifted weight toward student evaluations, which Abuelyaman argued would bias foreign-born professors; several colleagues agreed.
Abuelyaman complained in 2005–2006 about student-evaluation weight and participated in the Diversity Office investigations into Dr. Zeta and Dr. Delta; Zeta was later terminated for performance, not race, and Delta’s complaint involved alleged improper influence by Dennis on a Search Committee.
In March 2006 Abuelyaman was informed the Status Committee voted not to reappoint him; he completed 2006 but left for Saudi Arabia; federal suit followed, alleging Title VII discrimination and retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination claim viability on circumstantial evidence	Abuelyaman presents a mosaic of circumstantial evidence including comparators and expansion of discriminatory atmosphere	ISU shows no similarly situated comparators or non-pretextual reasons; rank and tenure distinctions matter	Discrimination claim fails; no triable issue.
Use of similarly situated comparators	Comparable non-protected-status professors were treated more favorably	Rank, tenure status, and differing standards preclude true comparability	No valid comparators; no discrimination shown.
Ambiguous statements as circumstantial evidence	Evidence like beta’s remarks point to bias	Ambiguous or benign contextualization; not directly discriminatory	Evidence insufficient to create triable issue.
Retaliation claim for Delta complaint investigation	Participation in Delta’s investigation was protected activity	Delta complaint lacked mention of discrimination; insufficient protected activity	Judgment as a matter of law for Delta-retaliation theory affirmed.
Retaliation claim for Zeta complaint investigation	Participation in Diversity Office investigation was protected activity	No evidence that Status Committee knew of participation; late argument not raised at summary judgment	Summary judgment for ISU on Zeta-retaliation theory affirmed.

Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2008) (broader direct method includes circumstantial evidence pointing to discriminatory reason)
Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. College, 420 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2005) (three categories of circumstantial evidence of discrimination)
Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2002) (comparator analysis factors for similarly situated employees)
Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., Inc., 336 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2003) (comparability criteria for evaluating similarly situated employees)
Maarouf v. Walker Mfg. Co., 210 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2000) (causation in discrimination via protected activity)
Dey v. Colt Const. & Dev. Co., 28 F.3d 1446 (7th Cir. 1994) (causation in retaliation analysis)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., Inc., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (balancing test for excusable neglect in appeals)
Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2002) (evidence sufficiency standards for triable issues)
Jones v. Res-Care, Inc., 613 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2010) (retaliation standard for causal connection)
Miller v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2000) (statutory protected activity; discrimination frameworks)