After examining the briefs and the record, we have determined that oral argument

*

is unnecessary. As such, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R.

APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2010*

Decided March 17, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3449

LISA J. GILLARD,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 4208

Joan B. Gottschall,

Judge.

O R D E R

Lisa Gillard, who is not a student, alumna, or employee of Northwestern University,

was asked to leave a school library and was escorted off the premises. She sued

Northwestern claiming that her expulsion violated federal statutes that prohibit

discrimination based on race and, she asserts, discrimination against individuals

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-3449 Page 2

researching disability rights. After giving Gillard four chances to expand on her

allegations, the district court finally dismissed her case with prejudice. She appeals.

For purposes here, we accept as true the allegations in Gillard’s fourth amended

complaint. Gillard, an African American with an unexplained mental handicap that affects

her reading comprehension, had been using Northwestern facilities to conduct personal

research concerning the rights of the disabled. After the law school revoked her permission

to use its library, Gillard moved to a computer lab in another building, but was escorted

out after accusing a student of physically assaulting her. At the time a campus police

officer told her that she was “starting stuff” and that “getting rid” of her would solve the

problem. Gillard later attempted to continue her work at the university’s Joseph Schaffner

Library but was told by a campus police officer to leave. Gillard does not say what reason

was given by the officer, if any.

Gillard brought four claims premised on the denial of her use of the Schaffner

Library. The first claim, under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to

2000a-6, alleges that Northwestern engaged in racial discrimination “due to the disparate

impact of this civil and human rights violation by denying Plaintiff a legal written

justification, legal written warning, or a legal written notice of her banning from this public

library with public accommodations.” Following the same format, the second and third

claims, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, allege that Northwestern violated her

rights “because of previous knowledge of her disability rights legal research claim, and the

disparate impact of this civil and human rights violation.” The fourth claim, under Title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-4, alleges that Northwestern

violated her rights “because there is a nexus between Plaintiff’s rights and Defendant’s

adverse action due to some federal funding, a Federal Depository system, and the disparate

impact of this civil and human rights violation.” She seeks $ 80 million in damages. The

district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacks a plausible basis for a

disability claim or the assertion that Northwestern’s actions were motivated by Gillard’s

race.

Gillard argues on appeal that the district court erred because Northwestern’s library

counts as a “place of public accommodation” under the relevant statutes. But the status of

the library is irrelevant. The district court assumed that the library was open to the public

but dismissed the complaint on the ground that Gillard does not allege any facts that could

lead one to believe that the university excluded her because she belongs to a protected

class. Accordingly, the pertinent issue is whether the complaint properly alleges

discrimination. 
No. 09-3449 Page 3

We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Lake v. Neal, 585 F.3d

1059, 1060 (7th Cir. 2009); Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2008). 

Gillard’s complaint must provide enough facts to make out a claim that is “plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). When the plaintiff’s allegations “do not permit the court to infer

more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint does not satisfy the minimal

pleading burden of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.

The statutes Gillard invoked all require proof that she was treated differently

because of her race or a qualifying disability. See 29 U.S.C. § 794 (prohibiting

discrimination against an “otherwise qualified individual with a disability”); 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000a (prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation “on the ground of

race”); id. § 2000d (prohibiting discrimination “on the ground of race” in programs

receiving federal assistance); 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (prohibiting discrimination in public

accommodations “on the basis of disability”); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280 (2001)

(holding that Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination); Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ.

of Ill., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (same); Rothman v. Emory Univ., 123 F.3d 446, 451 (7th

Cir. 1997) (requiring direct or indirect evidence of discrimination for ADA and

Rehabilitation Act claims). After reviewing the complaint, we reach the same conclusion as

the district court: Gillard does not allege any facts raising a plausible inference that race (or

any other protected ground) was a factor behind Northwestern’s expulsion.

AFFIRMED.