Milligan v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13997
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Milligan, a SIU freshman, experienced multiple inappropriate encounters with Professor Meyers, a donor and institute director, beginning in October 2007.
- Meyers touched Milligan and made sexually suggestive comments about Milligan’s appearance; supervisor Kraft and department officials were informed.
- Koropchak, Meyers’ disciplinary authority, conducted an investigation after Milligan pursued a formal complaint; Meyers was reprimanded and barred from student contact, with a training requirement.
- SIU learned Meyers had prior similar conduct with another employee; Meyers was banned from campus after Meyers failed to complete required training.
- Milligan changed majors and, due to ongoing concerns, ceased work in the chemistry stockrooms; he later sued SIU in 2009 under Title VII, Title IX, and retaliation theories, with the district court granting summary judgment for SIU.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SIU's response to Meyers' harassment was reasonable for Title VII | Milligan argues SIU failed to respond adequately given Meyers' history. | SIU contends its actions were prompt and effective under the circumstances. | SIU's response was reasonable; no liability under Title VII. |
| Whether SIU's response rendered it liable under Title IX for deliberate indifference | Milligan claims deliberate indifference due to inadequate remedies. | SIU's Title IX response mirrors Title VII sufficiency; no deliberate indifference. | No Title IX liability; response was not deliberately indifferent. |
| Whether there is factual support for retaliation claims under Title VII/IX | Milligan asserts causation between complaints and adverse actions. | SIU shows non-retaliatory, performance-based reasons for future staffing decisions. | No triable causation; judgments on retaliation affirmed. |
| Whether temporal proximity and other circumstantial evidence support causation | Milligan points to timing between complaints and adverse actions as evidence of retaliation. | Timing alone is insufficient; other factors show non-retaliatory reasons. | Temporal proximity insufficient; no triable issue on causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990 (7th Cir.2011) (employer liability for harassment requires prompt/adequate response)
- Porter v. Erie Foods Int’l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.2009) (prompt investigation and corrective action are key)
- Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.2001) (reasonable measures can include limiting contact and training)
- McKenzie v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473 (7th Cir.1996) (employer action within a reasonable time frame is required)
- Saxton v. AT & T Co., 10 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.1993) (investigation completion and timely action support reasonableness)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.2011) (employer liability depends on whether harassment is within supervisor authority)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court 1998) (deliberate indifference standard for Title IX liability)
- Doe-2 v. McLean Cnty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507 (7th Cir.2010) (contemporary standard for school district liability under Title IX)