Aft ere xa m i ni ngthe b r i ef s an d the r ec o r d, we ha ve de te r m i ne d tha t o r ala r g um en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . A s s u c h, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) (C). 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 10, 20 10 * Deci ded M ar ch 17, 20 10 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 3449 LI S A J . GI LLAR D , P laint if f-A ppell ant,
v. N ORTHW ES TERN UN I VERS I TY, D efend a nt-A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, E as te rn D ivis ion . N o. 07C 420 8 Joa n B . G ot ts c h all, Judg e . 

### O RD E R Lisa Gil l ar d, w ho i s no t a stud ent, al um na, o r em plo yee o fN or thw est er n U ni ver si ty, w as ask ed to l eave a schoo l l ibra ryand w as esco rt ed offthe prem i ses . S he sued N or th w es te rn cla im in g t h at h er ex p u lsio n vio lat ed fed er al s ta tu te s t h at p ro h ibit d isc rim in at ion ba se d on rac e a n d , sh e a ss er ts , d isc rim in at ion ag ain st ind ivid u als NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 3449 Page 2

re sea rchi ng di sabi l i ty ri ghts. Afte r gi vi ng Gi l l ar d fo ur chance s t o expand o n her al l ega ti ons, the dist ri ct c ourtfi nal l y di sm i sse d her case with pr ej ud i ce. S he appeal s. Forpurposes her e, we accept as tr ue the al l ega ti ons i n Gil l ar d’s f ourth am ended com pla i nt. Gi l l ar d, an A fri can Am er i can with an unexplained m entalhandica p that affects her re adingco m prehensi on, had bee n usi ng N or thw est er n f aci l i ti es to conduct pers onal re sea rch concerni ng the r i ghts ofthe disabl ed. Afte r the l aw scho olr evo ked herper m i ssi on to use i ts l ibra ry, Gil l ar d m ove d to a co m puter l ab in another bui l ding, but w as esco rt ed out afteracc usi ng a student o fphysi cal l y a ssa ult i ng her
. At the ti m e a cam pu s pol i ce o ffi ce r t o l d he r tha t sh e was “ st ar tings tu ff ” an d tha t “g et tingr i d” o fhe r woul d s o l ve the probl em . Gi l l ar d l ate r att em pted to continue herwork at the uni ver si ty’ s J ose ph Schaffner Libr ar y b ut was to l d by a cam pu s pol i ce o ffi certo l eave . Gi l l ar d does no t s ay w hat r eas on w as gi ven bythe offi cer, i fany. Gil l ar d bro ught f our cl ai m s pre m i sed o n the denia lo fheruse ofthe Schaffner Libr ar y. The fi rs t cl ai m , under Ti tl e I Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U . S. C. §§ 2000 a t o 2000 a- 6, al l ege s that Northwester n enga ged i n ra ci aldi scr i m i nati on “ du e t o the di spara te i m pact o fthi s ci vi l and hum an r i ghts vi ol ati on bydenyi ng Pl ai nti ffa l ega lwri tte n j u st ifica tio n, l eg al w rit te n w ar n in g, or a lega l w rit te n n ot ice of h er ba n n in g fro m th is p u b lic library w ith p ub li c acc om m od ations.” Fol low ing the sam e form at, the secon d and third cl ai m s, unde r Ti tl e I I Io fthe Am er i ca ns wi thDi sabi l i ti es Act, 4 2 U. S
. C. § § 12 18 1- 12 18 9, a nd Se cti on 5 04 ofthe Rehabi l i tat i on Act, 29 U . S. C. § 7 94, al l ege thatN or thw est er n vi ol ate d her r i g ht s “b ec au se o fpr ev i o us kno wl edg e o fhe r di sabi l i tyr i g ht s l eg alr es ea r chc l ai m , a nd the di spa r at e i m pac t o fthi s ci vi l a nd hu m anr i g ht s vi o l at i o n. ” The f o ur thc l ai m , unde r Ti tl e VI of the C ivi l R ights A ct of 1964, 42 U . S. C
. §§ 2000d to 2000d -4, all eges th at N orthw estern viol ated her rights “be cau se th ere is a nex us betw een Plaintiff’s ri gh ts an d De fend an t’s advers e a cti on due to so m e federa l fund i ng, a Feder alDeposi tory s yst em , and the dispar ate i m pac t o fthi s ci vi l a nd hu m anr i g ht s vi o l at i o n. ” S he s ee k s $ 80 mil l i o n in da m ag es . T he d istri ct cou rt dism issed the com p lai nt on th e groun d that i t lacks a plau sible bas is for a d isabil ity cl aim or th e assertion th at N orthw estern ’s actions w ere m otivated by G il lard’s ra ce. G il lard argu es on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt erred be cau se N orthw estern ’s l ibrary counts as a “ pla ce o fpubli c ac com m odati on” und erthe re l evantst atute s. But the st atus of th e lib ra ry is irre lev an t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtas su m ed th at th e lib ra ry w as op en to th e p u b lic b u t d ism iss ed th e c om p lain t o n th e g ro u n d th at G illard d oe s n otalleg e a n y fa c ts th at co u ld l ead one to bel i eve thatthe unive rs i ty excl ud ed herbec ause she b el ongs to a prot ecte d cl ass . Accordi ngl y, the pertinent i ssue i s whether the c om pla i nt pro perl y a l l ege s d isc rim in at ion .N o. 09
- 3449 Page 3

W e re vie w a d ism iss al for failu re to st at e a cla im d e n ov o. Lakev. Ne al , 58 5 F . 3d 10 59 , 106 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); D os s v. Cl e arwate rTit l eCo. , 551 F.3d 63 4, 63 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Gil l ar d’s com pla i nt m ust pro vi de enough f acts to m ake o ut a cl ai m thati s “ pla usibl e o n i ts f ace. ” B el l Atl. Co rp. v. Tw om bly, 5 50 U . S. 54 4, 57 0 ( 2007 ) . “A cl ai m has f aci alpl ausibi l i ty w h en th e p lain tiff p lea d s fa c tu al c on te n t t h at allow s t h e c ou rtto d ra w th e re as on ab le i nfe re nce that the defendant i s l i abl e forthe m i sco nd uct al l ege d.” Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 12 9 S. Ct. 19 37, 19 49 ( 2009 ) . W hen the pla i nti ff’ s a l l ega ti ons “do notper m i t the co urt to i nfe r m or e than the m er e pos sibi l i ty ofm i sco nd uct, ” the co m pla i nt does notsa ti sfy the m i ni m al p lea d in g b u rd en of R u le 8 of th e F ed er al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u re . Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. at19 50. T h e s ta tu te s G illard inv ok ed all req u ire p ro of th at sh e w as tre at ed d iffer en tly b ec au se of h er rac e o r a q u alify in g d isa b ility
. See 2 9 U. S
. C. § 7 94 ( pr o hibi ting di s c r i mi na t i o n a g a i ns ta n “ o the r wi s e qua l i fi e d ind i v i du a lwi th a di s ab i l i t y ” ) ; 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 000a ( prohibi ti ng di scr i m i nati on in pla ces ofpubli c ac com m odati on “ on the gr ound of ra c e” ); id
. § 2 0 0 0 d ( p r o h ib i t i n gd i s c r i mi n a t i o n “ o n th e g r o u n d o fr a c e ” i n p r o g r a ms re c eiv in g fe d er al a ss ist an c e); 42 U .S.C . § 12 18 2(a ) (p ro h ibit in g d isc rim in at ion in p u b lic ac c om m od at ion s “ on th e b as is of d isa b ility ”); Alexand e rv. Sa ndov al , 53 2 U.S
. 275, 28 0 ( 2001 ) (h old in g t h at T itle V I pr oh ibit s o n ly in te n tio n al d isc rim in at ion ); Bre werv. Bd. of Trs . of U ni v. of Ill
. , 479 F.3d 90 8, 92 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (sa m e); Roth m an v. Em ory Univ . , 12 3 F . 3d 446, 45 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( r equi r i ngdi r ec t o r i ndi r ec t ev i den ce o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n fo r ADA a nd Rehabi l i tat i on Act cl ai m s) . Afte r re vi ew i ng the co m pla i nt, we re ach the sa m e co ncl usi on a s the di str i ct c ourt : Gil l ar d does no t a l l ege any f acts r ai si ng a pla usibl e infe re nce that r ace ( or an y o th erpr o te ct ed g r o und) was a f ac to r b eh i nd Nor th wes te r n’ s ex pul si o n. AF F I RMED.