Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois

3 Citing cases

  1. Clack v. Rock-Tenn Company

    304 F. App'x 399 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Holding supervisor's discriminatory comments and disparate treatment could not be imputed to employer, because the general manager decided to terminate employee based upon an independent investigation

    When faced with the conflicting stories of two employees, "there is probably no practical step an employer can take beyond independently investigating the misconduct charges that will reduce the chances of an employee's racism influencing its behavior." Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of III., 479 F.3d 908, 920 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 357, 169 L.Ed.2d 36 (2007). However, I believe that the type of narrowly focused investigation conducted here is insufficient in this context.

  2. Joseph v. Boise State Univ.

    998 F. Supp. 2d 928 (D. Idaho 2014)   Cited 20 times

    A prima facie case of discrimination in the educational context is “membership in a protected class, meeting the school's legitimate educational expectations, an adverse educational action and worse treatment than that of similarly situated students not in the protected class.” Brewer v. Board of Trustees, Univ. Ill., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied552 U.S. 825, 128 S.Ct. 357, 169 L.Ed.2d 36 (2007).

  3. In re Deboras S.

    220 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    uant to title VI are "analyzed under the shifting burden of proof scheme applied in [t]itle VII cases"; Woods v. Wright Institute , Docket No. 96-16811, 1998 WL 133035, *1 (9th Cir. March 24, 1998) (decision without published opinion, 141 F.3d 1183 ); wherein "[t]he complainant [bears] the initial burden ... of establishing a prima facie case of ... discrimination." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) ( McDonnell Douglas ); see also Lin v. District of Columbia , Docket No. 20-7111, 2022 WL 4007900, *14 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (applying "the McDonnell Douglas framework" to title VI claim); Rashdan v. Geissberger , 764 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[w]e now join the other circuits in concluding that McDonnell Douglas also applies to [t]itle VI disparate treatment claims"); Brewer v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois , 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir.) (initial burden rests with complainant in title VI case), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 825, 128 S. Ct. 357, 169 L. Ed. 2d 36 (2007) ; Jackson v. University of New Haven, 228 F. Supp. 2d 156, 159 (D. Conn. 2002) ("[c]ourts have ... applied the same burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas to disparate treatment claims arising under [title VI]." The intervenor has not met that burden.