Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—7th Cir.: DePaul’s refusal to rehire instructor accused of sexual harassment was not race-based, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

A student accused the Arab-American instructor of attempting to get her intoxicated and aggressively seeking sexual relations with her.

An Arab-American faculty member with DePaul University, who admitted to having had a sexual relationship with a student, failed to show the university’s decision not to hire him as an adjunct and to deem him ineligible for future employment after the student sued DePaul was not based on his race, the Seventh Circuit held. Affirming summary judgment against his Section 1981 claim, the court found he was unable to show the university’s stated reasons for the adverse actions—allegations in the lawsuit and additional reports of misconduct—were pretextual (Saud v. DePaul University, No. 25-1034 (7th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025)).

The instructor began working for DePaul around 2006 as an adjunct and later became a term faculty member, a nontenure track position on an annual teaching contract. In April 2017, a college dean informed him and another faculty member that, due to budgetary constraints, their contracts would not be renewed for the next year. The next day, the department chair emailed school administrators about retaining both faculty members as adjuncts.

Sexual misconduct allegations. The same day the instructor learned his contract would not be renewed, an attorney sent the university a letter claiming the instructor had committed “repeated acts of sexual misconduct involving” one of his students. The university did not have a specific policy prohibiting student-faculty relationships, and the instructor acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with her. He claimed, however, that it was consensual and that it began when she was no longer in his class. After an investigation, the Title IX coordinator found insufficient evidence to conclude the instructor had engaged in misconduct.

In mid-May, the department chair and instructor agreed that the instructor would teach two classes as an adjunct for the coming year, and the dean’s office, on June 26, agreed to reinstate him to his adjunct position. The instructor requested that he be paid $6,000 per course, which exceeded the $4,800 per course the chair had the authority to offer.

Her lawsuit. On June 29, the student sued the instructor and the university, claiming that, while she was his student, he attempted to get her intoxicated, took her to his home where he “began to aggressively seek sexual relations with [her],” had sex with her, and told her she would get an A in his class and she did not have to take the final exam. The Title IX coordinator again investigated and the instructor, rather than agreeing to an interview, provided her with the verified answer he filed in the lawsuit in which he admitted asking the student for a drink while she was a student in his class and having sex with her. He did not deny that the sex occurred while she was his student. The coordinator issued a second report finding by a preponderance of evidence that the instructor had sexually harassed the student.

No longer eligible. In October, the dean informed the instructor that he was no longer eligible for future employment at DePaul and that he could not provide formal or informal instruction in any classroom-based or cocurricular activities sponsored by the school.

His lawsuit. The instructor then sued DePaul, alleging race discrimination in violation of Section 1981. The district court granted summary judgment against this claim.

Decision not to hire as adjunct. On appeal, the instructor identified two adverse actions—the university’s decision not to employ him as an adjunct and its decision to deem him ineligible for further employment. Regarding the decision not to hire him, DePaul argued that it was because of the allegations in the lawsuit, two additional reports of potential misconduct, low projected enrollment in his courses, and his request for more money than the department could pay.

Comparator. Asserting that these reasons were pretext for race discrimination, the instructor pointed to a white colleague, the same one who was also told his contract would not be renewed due to budgetary constraints, arguing that he had been treated more favorably following anonymous allegations of sexual assault posted online. Explaining that he was not directly comparable to the instructor in all material respects, the court noted that, while the instructor admitted to having sex with the student, the university was unable to identify the colleague’s accuser or gather any other information about the allegations.

Further, said the court, the department chair based his decision not to hire the instructor on the student’s lawsuit, not the first investigation by the Title IX coordinator, which had cleared him. Indeed, the court observed, during and after that first investigation, the chair worked with both the instructor and his colleague to have them hired as adjunct professors and it was only after the student’s lawsuit that he informed the instructor that DePaul would not hire him.

Shifting reasons. The instructor next argued that the chair’s reasons for not hiring him were shifting and inconsistent because the chair first told him he was not being hired due to “low projected course enrollments” and his salary request. Then, during his deposition, he said the student’s lawsuit and additional reports of the instructor’s misconduct also factored into his decision. Pointing out that that he never disclaimed the enrollment and budgetary reasons, the court explained that where “an employer relies on multiple reasons for the termination, its failure to address all of the reasons in each communication about the employee is not enough to show contradictions or shifts in rationales that suggest pretext.”

Salary request. And while the instructor also pointed to the chair’s failure to forward his salary request to the dean as evidence of pretext, as he had forwarded his colleague’s salary request, the court noted that his salary request came two days after the student filed her lawsuit. This, together with the other reports of misconduct the chair had received, did not demonstrate pretext.

Not supported by the evidence. As to his argument there was evidence the university made the decision not to rehire him before the student filed her lawsuit, the email he pointed to in support said the school was reinstating him to his adjunct position and it was only after the lawsuit that he was informed he would not be hired.

Ineligible for future employment. Turning to the instructor’s other identified adverse action—the university’s declaration that he was ineligible for future employment—the court noted that this occurred after the second investigation determined that he had sexually harassed the student and he was unable to show the dean did not honestly believe he was making the correct employment decision.

For the same reasons already explained, the court again rejected his attempt to rely on his colleague as a comparator. The instructor also pointed to another colleague—a white professor—whom the Title IX coordinator investigated following complaints about “verbal exchanges of an explicit sexual nature” with a student no longer enrolled in his course. But the professor was found to have violated university policy and deemed ineligible for employment and thus, because he faced the same sanction, he was not a proper comparator, said the court.

Cat’s paw. Finally, the court rejected the instructor’s attempt to impute the Title IX coordinator’s supposed discrimination to the dean’s decision. He argued that the coordinator was discriminatory because DePaul did not have a policy prohibiting faculty-student relationships, yet she investigated him following the student’s claims and ultimately found that he had violated DePaul policy. However, said the court, “DePaul’s policy merely says that such relationships are not per se prohibited, not that they can never amount to misconduct” and the university “might have put itself at risk by not investigating the sexual harassment complaints.”

Moreover, the coordinator cleared the instructor of wrongdoing after the first investigation and changed her mind only after more evidence emerged. Nor was there any evidence she did not honestly believe the instructor violated the policy following her second investigation. According, the court affirmed summary judgment against the instructor’s race discrimination claim.

The case is No. 25-1034.

Judge: St. Eve, A.

Attorneys: Christina Abraham (Abraham Law & Consulting) for Laith Saud. Brian Philip Paul (Michael Best & Friedrich) for DePaul University.

Companies: DePaul University

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge SexualHarassment IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews