Burton v. Board of Regents
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4752
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sabina Burton, a tenure-track professor at Univ. of Wisconsin–Platteville, reported a student complaint in Oct. 2012 that another professor had sexually harassed a student by passing a note. She informed her department chair (Caywood) and the College Dean (Throop).
- After the report, Caywood implemented a department policy change about how student complaints are routed and became less collegial toward Burton; Burton perceived this and related conduct as retaliatory.
- Burton pursued a cybersecurity curriculum grant (NSF application rejected; AT&T offered $7,000). Caywood and Throop questioned press-release language and website content, but the AT&T grant was publicly awarded and Burton later received tenure unanimously in 2013.
- Burton filed an ERD charge in Aug. 2013 and later filed suit (Apr. 2014). Throop sent a “letter of direction” in Oct. 2014 identifying inappropriate conduct and sought a reprimand; Burton later filed an EEOC charge (Dec. 2014).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Board of Regents on Burton’s Title VII and Title IX retaliation claims; Burton appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Burton failed to raise triable issues of materially adverse action and but‑for causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX retaliation: whether post‑report criticism and alleged withdrawal of support were materially adverse | Burton: reporting the note was protected; Caywood/Throop’s criticisms and reduced support for her curriculum were adverse and retaliatory | Board: the actions were minor workplace disagreements or routine management, not materially adverse; Burton received tenure and the grant | Court: Not materially adverse; summary judgment for Board affirmed |
| Title VII retaliation: whether Throop’s letter of direction and complaint were caused by Burton’s ERD/EEOC filings and lawsuit | Burton: filing ERD/EEOC and suit were protected, and the letter/complaint were retaliatory adverse actions | Board: admits those are adverse but asserts legitimate, non‑retaliatory reasons and lack of but‑for causation; timing and knowledge gaps undermine causation | Court: Although adverse, insufficient circumstantial evidence of but‑for causation or pretext; summary judgment for Board affirmed |
| Whether other alleged acts (pressure to drop charges, threats re: canceled class) were materially adverse | Burton: those pressures and threats were retaliatory adverse actions | Board: comments and unfulfilled threats caused no injury and are not materially adverse | Court: Not materially adverse or actionable; cannot support retaliation claim |
| Whether Burton may raise additional facts/arguments on appeal that she did not present below | Burton: urges broader set of protected activities and adverse actions be considered | Board: arguments not raised below are forfeited; district court limited to issues presented in opposition to summary judgment | Court: Forfeiture applies; appellate review limited to claims presented below |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (adverse action standard in retaliation claims)
- Nassar v. Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 2517 (but‑for causation standard for retaliation)
- Brunson v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. standard of review for summary judgment)
- Chaib v. Indiana, 744 F.3d 974 (reprimands and materiality of adverse action)
- Hobgood v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (when courts may second‑guess employer personnel decisions)
- Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d 844 (unfulfilled threats not materially adverse)
- Liberles v. Cook Cty., 709 F.2d 1122 (must present reasons to trial court to preserve arguments on summary judgment)