Belcher v. Springfield College, 2:17-cv-01086

Background

Alice Belcher, an African-American woman over 40, worked as an adjunct instructor for Springfield College beginning in May 2012 and alleges a reduction in teaching assignments after a new dean was hired.
In 2015 she was denied promotion to an adjunct lecturer position in favor of a younger Latino male and alleges she was not interviewed despite superior qualifications.
Belcher filed three EEOC charges: (1) March 2016—discrimination re: the promotion; (2) Sept. 2016—retaliation for being barred from teaching a domestic violence course; (3) Oct. 2017—race, sex, age discrimination and retaliation for earlier EEOC charges, alleging no adjunct work assigned since Jan. 2017.
Springfield stopped assigning Belcher classes and, on August 2, 2017, informed her it would give her no further teaching assignments (alleged termination).
Belcher’s operative first amended complaint asserts Title VII race and sex discrimination, ADEA age discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and a § 1981 race claim; she also sought to amend to delete discipline-related allegations and clarify dates.
The court resolved (1) a motion by Springfield to partially dismiss for claims beyond EEOC exhaustion and (2) Belcher’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint for procedural noncompliance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims based on termination and denial of work were exhausted via EEOC charges	Belcher: third EEOC charge alleging no work since Jan 2017 reasonably alerts EEOC/employer to termination/refusal-to-assign-work theory	Springfield: charges did not mention the August 2017 termination email or discipline; therefore termination and other new theories are unexhausted	Court: Denied dismissal as to termination/refusal-to-assign-work—EEOC/ employer could reasonably investigate termination from charge alleging no work for months
Whether allegations of increased scrutiny and selective/unwarranted discipline are within EEOC charge scope	Belcher sought to delete these claims in amendment	Springfield: those allegations were not in EEOC charges and are beyond scope	Court: Granted dismissal of the increased-scrutiny and selective-discipline allegations
Whether retaliatory discharge claim is plausible despite temporal gap	Belcher: ongoing denial of assignments after EEOC charges constitutes retaliatory course of conduct culminating in termination	Springfield: long gap undermines inference of causation; pleadings insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal	Court: Denied dismissal—pleadings sufficiently allege retaliation given contract/adjunct context and ongoing denial of assignments
Whether leave to file second amended complaint should be granted	Belcher: sought to amend to remove inadvertent references and clarify dates (cited Rule 15)	Springfield: opposed; highlighted procedural defects	Held: Denied for failure to comply with Civil L.R. 7 (no supporting memorandum; no reply); Plaintiff forfeited argument

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state plausible claim)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts vs. continuing violations discussion)
Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2014) (retaliation pleading and timing guidance)
Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) (retaliation for filing EEOC charge does not require new EEOC charge)
Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., 336 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion/EEOC charge scope)
Novitsky v. Am. Consulting Eng’rs, L.L.C., 196 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 1999) (what EEOC investigation could reasonably be expected to grow from the charge)
Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1994) (view charge as whole to determine notice)
Conner v. Ill. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 413 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2005) (charge and complaint must describe same circumstances and participants)