The Hon or able Gar y Fe i ne rm an, ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3862 S AMU ELM I LL I GAN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B O ARD OF T RUS TEE S OF S O UTH ERN I LLINO ISU NIVER S ITY, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 CV 320

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge

.
A RGUED D ECEMBER 2, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 10, 2012

Be f o r e R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd F EI NE RMAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  F EI NE RMAN, D i s trictJudg e . S amuelM i l l i g an, the n a fre shm an atS ou ther n I l l i noi s Un i ver si ty ( “SI U ”) , had2 N o. 10

- 3862 th ree un com fortable encou n t ers w ith D r. Ca l M eyers

— a profess or em er i tus at, and s ubstanti al donor to , SIU

— i n whi chM ey er s to uched M i l l i g ani na ppr o pr i at ely a nd c om p lim en te d h im on w h at M ey er s b elie ve d to be h is fem in in e fe at u re s. M i l l i ga n su ed SIU u n d er T itle V II and Titl e I X f orcr eat i ng a host i l e workand educati onal envi ro nm ent a nd als o f orr eta l i ating ag ai nst hi m f or com pla i ni ng ab out M eye rs ’ har assm en t. The di str i ct c o ur tg r a nt e d s ummar y j ud g men tt o S I U, Mi l l i g a n a pp e a l e d , a n d w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und The proce du ra lposture re quir es us to st ate the f acts as f avo rabl y to M i l l i gan as the r eco rd per m i ts. S ee O ’ Le ary v . A ccret ive Health, Inc. , 6 5 7F
. 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 1 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 1 1 )
. We emphas i ze tha t no e ndo rsem ento fa ny f ac t r eg ar di ng M e y ers

— w ho, as a non- party, has had no occa si on in th i s ca se t o di spu te M i l l i g an ’ s ac cus at i o ns

— i s i nt e nd e d. M ill igan en roll ed at SI U i n Fall 2007as a che m istry maj o r . H e d e c i d e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n S I U’ s s t u d e n te mplo ym ent pr ogr am and w as hi re d by Chri s Kraft to w or k in th e c h em ica l st oc kr o o m s a t N ec ke rs H all, the ho m e o fthe Ch em istry Departm ent. M eye rs was a seve nty- ni ne- year- ol d profess orem er i tus a nd Dir ecto r of th e ep ony m ou s M eyers Institut e for I nt erd iscipli n ary Resear ch in O rg ani c and M edi ci nalChem i str y, wh i ch had been e stabl i shed i n 200 0 with a $ 2. 5 m i l l i on donati o n fr o m M ey er s. M ey er s no l o ng ert au g ht s tu den ts a nd ha d no s upe r vi so r y o ro th era utho r i tyo ve rM i l l i g an .N o. 10

- 3862 3 On Oc tobe r4 , 2 00 7, when M il l i g anwas wor k i ngi n the f i r s t flo or st oc kr oo m , w h ich w as d ire c tly ac ro ss th e h all fr o m M ey er s’ o ffi ce , M i l l i g ane nc o unt er ed M ey er s i n the hal l w ay. M eye rs to l d M i l l i gan that h i s hai r w oul d m ake hi m “a very s ex y l ady, ” a nd then gi ggl ed and squeeze d M i l l i gan’ s butt ock s. T h e encounterl ast ed f our to fi ve se c o n d s. M illiga n rep or te d th e in c id en t t o K ra ft, h is su per vi so r, who s ai d tha t th i s so unde d l i k e so m ethi ng M ey e r s wo ul d do

. Kr a ft a s k e d M i l l i g a n i f he wa nt ed to tal k t o som eone abou t th e inci dent and offer ed to acc o mpa n y Mi l l i g a n i fh e d i d

. Mi l l i g a n d e c l i n e d

. At th att i m e, S I U’s s ex ua lha r as smentpo l i cy requi r ed an y supervisor w ho r ecei ved a w ri tte n oro ra lco m pla i nt to “t ak e ne ce ss ar y a ct i o n t o r e s o l v e th e c o m pl ai nt prom ptl y” and to consul t the A ffi rm ati ve A cti on Offi ce to de te r m i ne the a ppr o pr i at e co ur se o fa ct i o n. O n O c to b er 11 , 200 7, M ey er s a p p ro ac h ed M illi g a n in the s toc kr oo m and ask ed w here he c oul d re n t hai r l i ke M illiga n ’s b ec au se itw o u l d look “p re tt y s ex y on a lad y.” M eye rs sa i d that he would da te M i l l i gan i fhe were a w om an, l aughed, and then l eft. The enco unter l ast ed about tw enty to thi rty s eco nd s. A fterl earni ng o f th is encou nt er, M il li gan ’s m oth er call ed the C he m istry Dep ar tm ent a nd ar ra nged to m eetthe next day w i th Dr
. Ga r y Ki ns e l, the De pa r t men t Ch a i r . Pr i o r to the m eet i ng, Kinselnot i fi ed Dr. J ohn Koro pchak

— th e Vi ce Cha nc el l o rf o rRe se ar cha nd Gr adua te De an, a nd th e in d ivid ua l resp ons ibl e for su p ervising the M eyers I nsti tute

— o fthe s i tu at i o n. A t hi s m eet i ng w i th the M i l l i gans, K i nsel sa id that M eye rs was an o l d m an with a c om p rom i sed m ental4 N o. 10

- 3862 sta te w ho co uld notbe hel d accountabl e forhi s a cti ons, th at he ha d o nc e be en a g r ea tly admi r ed sc i en tist and ana ss ett o the u ni ve r si ty, a nd tha t he ha d no f ami l y a nd that SI U was hi s l i fe. Kinseladded tha t w h i l e he had n o d isc ip lin ar y a u t h o r ity ov er M ey er s, K or op c h ak d id ha ve tha t au th o r i tya nd wou l d m eet w ith the M i l l i g an s as soo n as he co uld. K i nselr evi ew ed SI U ’ s s exual har ass m e ntp o l i c y wi th the Mi l l i g a ns . Ki ns e lwa s n o tf a mi l i ar w ith th e p o l i c y b efo re th e m ee tin g a n d inc or re c tly bel i eve d that s exual har ass m ent c om pla i n ts m ust be s ub mi t t e d in wr i t i ng . Mi l l i g a n f o un d K i ns e lt o b e r e c e pti ve to hi s c om p lai nt and did notbel i eve thatKinsel w as bru sh ing him off

. M i l l i gan’ s m othe r th en co ntacte d M ar ci a Phel ps fro m SI U ’s A ffirm ative A ction an d Eq ua l E m p loym en t O p p ortuni ty Offi ce. Phel ps encour age d M i l l i gan’ s m oth er to m eetw ith Koro pchak and to te l lhi m thattheywished to proce ed w i th a f or m alco m pla i nt. Phelp s also as ked M i l l i gan’ s m ot h erto cal lbac k a fterthe m eet i ng with K or opchak. I n the m eanti m e, Kinseland K ra ft a ssi gned M i l l i gan t o the s eco nd fl oo r sto ckroo m , wh er e he had w or ked pri or to th e firs t in c id en t w ith M ey er s a n d w h er e h e w o u ld be l ess l i kel y t o encoun terM eye rs . M i l l i gan di d not obj ect to the a ssi gnm ent a nd worke d the s am e num ber o fho ur s. On Oct o be r 16, 2 00 7, ho wev er, M i l l i g ane nco unt er ed M ey er s o n the s ta i r s be twe enthe firs t an d se co nd fl o o r s. M ey er s g i g g l ed an d t o ld M il l i g antha t he w o u ld “ look sexy as a girl ” beca us e of his ha ir. M eyers al so gr abbed M i l l i gan n earthe bel t l i ne with hi s ind exN o. 10

- 3862 5 fi n g e ra n d th u mb ; b e c a u s e M i l l i g a n wo r e h i s j e a n s l o w, the g r ab “ wa s v e r y c l o s e t o [ hi s ] g e ni t a l a r e a ” a nd m ade hi m “ ve r y unc o m f o r table. ” The e nc o unt erl as te d abo ut si x sec onds. K or opchak’ s m eet i ng with the M i l l i gans too k pl ace a dayl at er . At the o ut se t, K oro pch akt o l d the m abo ut M eye rs ’ gr eatst atur e a t S I U and the $2. 5 m i l l i on donati on. A fterM i l l i gan deta i l ed M eye rs ’ i napp ro pr i ate behavi or, Koro pchak as ked wh etherthere w er e a ny witnesse s, and M i l l i gan r esponded that th er e w er e no ne. K orop ch ak told M il li gan that i t w ou ld be h is w ord aga i nst M eyers ’ and ask ed M i l l i gan four orfi ve ti m es whethe rhe w as su r e th athe want ed to pr o ce ed wi tha form al com p lai nt
. Th e M il li gan s fel t tha t K orop ch ak’s state m en ts an d qu estions im p li ed th at he w as d isi nt erest ed, di d not be l i eve them , and w anted the m to dro p t h e c o m p l a i n t
. B u tM i l l i g a n i n s i s t e d o n p u r s u i n ga c o mpl aint, a nd Ko r o pch aks ai d tha t he woul d b egin ani nve st iga tio n an d ad vis ed M illiga n to av oid M ey er s in th e i n t e r i m. Short l y a fte rthe meet i ng, Kor o pch akmet wi thM ey er s and tol d him thata student had co m pla i ned and that hi s beh avi o rwoul d b e m o ni to r ed. On Oct o be r2 6, the M i l l i g an s co nt ac te d Ly nn Connl ey, a n S I U ombudsman, to inq u ire ab ou t t h e in ve st iga tio n . C o n n ley ch ec ke d in wi thKor o pch ak, b utb efo r e C onn le y c o ul d c al lthe M i l l i gans back, Koro pchak co ntacte d the M i l l iga n s t o gi ve them an update. Du ring hi s invest i gat i on, Koro pchak l earned that M eyers h ad prev iously haras sed a fem ale Ch em istry Depa r tmente m pl o y ee . The e m pl o y ee s ai d tha t M ey er s6 N o. 10

- 3862 “c o ns ta nt l y c o m m en t[ ed] abo ut[ he r ] clo th i ng ” an d touched heri n an “inapp ro pri ate ” m anner seve ra l ti m es, in c lu d in g g ra b b in g h er by th e w ais t, ru b b in g h is h e a d a g a i n s th e rb o d y, a n d p o k i n gh e rb r e a s t
. T h e e mp l o y e e , h o we v e r, h a d d e c l i n e d t o p u r s u e a f o r ma lc o mpla i nt ag ai nst M eye rs . A t the conc lusio n of his i nv estigation of M il li gan ’s com plai nt, Koro pchak co ncl ud ed that M eye rs had v i o l a t e d S I U’ s s e x u a lh a r a s s men t p o l i c y a n d , o n N o v e mber8, 20 07, i ss u ed a l ett ero fr epri m and. The l ett er di rected M ey er s to c ea se a l lc o nt ac t wi ths tu den t w or ker s a nd to a tt en d sexualhar ass m ent t ra i ni ng by Decem b er 1 , 20 07. The l ett erwarned M eye rs that future vi ol ati ons orf ailur e t o com plywith the l ett er cou ld resu lt in h is te rm ination as D irector ofthe M eyers I nsti tute and rev oca ti on o fhi s uni ver si ty pri vi l ege s. M ey er s th enc o m m en ce d e ff o r ts to de te r m i ne w ho had r epor ted hi m . H e o ffer ed m oney to Kraft, bu t K raft refus ed t o t ell

. On J an ua ry 28, 2008 , M eyers ask ed M i l l i gan whether he had c om pla i ned; M i l l i gan m um bled and exc us ed him self. Th e nex t d ay, M il li gan ’s m othe r tol d SI U abo ut thatenc ou nter
. S I U al so discove re d that M eye rs had not com ple ted the s exual har ass m ent t ra i ni ng. ( W hi l e M eye rs m ay have att em pted to ne g o ti at e awaythe t r aini ngr equirem en t, the r e i s no evid en ce tha t S I U re l i ev ed hi m o ftha t o bl i g at i o n. ) In a l e t t e rda t e d J a nu a r y 3 1, 2008 , S I U Ch a nc e l l o rF e r na nd o Treviño ba nned M eye rs fro m cam pu s pending co m ple

tio n of a n ew inv es tig at ion an d w ar n ed th at h e w ou ld be s ubj ect to ar re st f ortr espass in g i fhe a pp ear ed onN o. 10

- 3862 7 uni ve r si typr o per ty
. M i l l i g an sa w M ey er s o n c ampus over tw e n t y tim es after the ba n w as im p osed

. SI U ’s publ i c sa fety pe r so nne le sc o r te d M ey er s o ffc ampus each tim e they b ecam e a w ar e o fhi s pre sence but, o n i nstr ucti ons fro m the Dir ecto r ofPubl i c S afety, he was no ta r r e s t e d. I n Feb ruar y o r M ar ch 200 8, M i l l i gan deci ded to ch an g e hi s m aj o rfr o m c he m i st r y t o creati ve wri ting . One m otivating factor w as his d e sire to get ou t of N ecke rs H a l l, whe r e he c o nt i nu e d t o s e e M e y e r s . I n Apr i l 20 08, K ra ft info rm ed M i l l i gan that he coul d n ot continue to w ork i n t h e c he m ical stock room s com e Fall2008. K raft tes t if ie d that his de cision w as p rom p ted by M il li gan ’s w an i ng i nter esti n the j ob and poorwork perf or m ance. M i l l i gan had r equeste d fe w erhour s t o al l ow him to study m or e, l eaving hi m with o nl y o ne working day perwe e k

. Mak i ngma t t e r s wo r s e , Mi l l i g a n ha d c a l l ed in si ckt wo t i m es a nd mi ss ed o ne da y wi th o utno ti fy i ng K ra ft, and al so had a n a c c i dent w i th a l i quid ni tr oge n cani ste r. M i l l i gan was ab l e t o gain univ ersity em plo ym en t i n Fal l20 08 w i th the Graduate Scho ol ’ s a dm i ssi ons offi ce a nd the unive rs i ty’ s t i cketo ffi ce. T h e fo re go in g e ve n t s g av e ris e t o t w o law su its . In Augus t 20 08 , M ey er s br o ug hts ui t ag ains t SI U and K or opchak, al l eging vi ol ati ons offed er aland sta te l aw r el ated t o the s ex ua lha r as smenti nv es ti g at i o n a nd M eye rs ’ expulsi on fro m cam pu s. S ee M eye rs v. S. Il l
. U ni v. , N o. 3: 08-cv-556 -M JR-C JP (S. D
. I ll

. ). Th e d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d M eye rs ’ sui t, se e M eye rs v. S. Il l
. U ni v. , 2 0 0 9 WL 37 19 39 2 (S .D
. Ill. N ov . 5, 200 9); M eye rs v. S. Il l
. U ni v. , 20 098 N o. 10

- 3862 W L 20460 61 ( S. D. I l l

. J uly10 , 20 09) , and an appealo fthat j ud gm ent i s pendingi n N o. 09

- 3931
. InA p ril 20 09 , M illiga n br ou gh t t h is s u it a ga in st SIU u n d er T itle V II for su bj ec t i n g h i m to a h os tile w or k e n viro n m en t, u n d er T itle IX for su bj ec tin g him to a h o s t ile educati onalenvi ro nm ent, and und erbo th statutes for te r m in at in g h im from h is c h em ica l st oc kr oo m j ob in re tal iat ion fo r com pla i ni ng ab out M eye rs . The di str i ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o SI U o n al lcl ai m s. 20 10 W L 26 49 91 7 (S .D . I ll. Ju n e 3 0, 20 10 ), r e co nsid erat i on den ied, 201 0 W L 48 18 38 7 (S .D . I ll. N ov . 16, 20 10 ). Th is a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on A. H o s t i l e Wo r k/E d u c a t i o n a l E n v i r o n me n tC l a i ms Tit l e VI Im ake s i t unl aw ful foran e m plo yer“t o disc r im in at e a ga in st an y in d ivid u al w ith res p ec t t o h is com pensati on, te rm s, co nd i ti ons, o r pri vi l ege s ofem plo ymen t, b e c a u s e o fs u c h i n d i v i d u a l ’ s . . . s e x . ” 4 2 U
. S
. C. § 2000 e-2(a)(1 ). T o suc ceed on his T itl e VIIhostile w ork envi ro nm ent c l ai m ag ai nst S I U , M i l l i gan m ust pro ve “(1 ) th at [h is] w o r k e n vir on m en t w as bo th ob j ec tiv ely and subj ecti vel y o ffensi ve; ( 2) thatthe h ar ass m ent was base d on [ hi s s ex] ; ( 3) thatthe conduct was ei ther s e v e r e o rp e r v a s i v e ; a n d ( 4 ) th a tth e r e i s a b a s i s f o re mplo yer l iab i l i ty. ” Vanc ev. Bal l St at eU ni v. , 64 6 F
. 3d 461, 469 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 1). A ssum i ng witho ut deci ding that M i l l i g ana dduce d e vi den ce s uffi ci en t to sati sfy the fi r stthr ee e l ement s, hi s cl ai m f al te r s o n the f o ur th

.N o. 10

- 3862 9 B ec au se M ey er s w as n otM illiga n ’s s u p e r vis or, SIU can be hel d l i abl e forM eye rs ’ har ass m ent o nl y i fM i l l i gan pr o ve s th atS I U w as “neg l i g en t ei th eri n di sc o ve r i ng orr em edyi ng the har ass m ent. ” Id

. a t 4 70 ; see ge n er ally Faraghe rv. Ci ty of

Boca Raton , 5 24 U
. S. 7 75 (1998); Bur l i ngt on Indus. , In c. v. Eller th , 52 4 U.S
. 74 2 ( 1998 )
. A n em plo yer is n eg lige n t if it d oe s n ot“p ro m p tly an d ad eq u at ely re spond to [ the] har ass m ent. ” Suthe r l and v. Wa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc. , 63 2 F
. 3d 990, 99 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. “ [W ]h at is [ a] r easonab l e [ re sponse] depend s o n th e gr avi ty ofthe hara ssmen t
. . . . [ A] n e mpl o y e r i s r e qu i r e d t o t a k e m or e ca re , othe r th in gs bei ng equal, to pro tecti ts
. . . em plo yee s fro m s er i ous s exual har ass m ent than to pro tectthem fro m tr i vi alhar ass m ent. ” Ba skervi l l ev. Cul l igan Int ’ l Co. , 50 F. 3d 428, 431- 32 ( 7th Cir
. 1995 ) ; see al so Eri cks on v. Wis. D ep’t o

f C o rr. , 469 F.3d 60 0 , 6 0 6 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). W h ile M eye rs ’ dem eani ng co m m ents and touchi ng m i ght b e en o ug h to co ns ti tu te se ve r e o r per va si ve ha r as sment und erTi tl e VI I, theydi d not r i se to the l eve l( e. g. , se xual as sa u lt or se x u al q ui d p r o q uo ) t h at w oul d have re quir ed SI U to ta ke drast i c ac ti on, such a s a sa m e- day i nvest i gat i on a nd te rm i nati on o fM eye rs . S ee Sm i th v. Sh eah a n, 18 9 F .3d 52 9, 53 5 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); M cKe nzi ev. Il l
. D ep’ tof

Tr ans p. , 92 F. 3d 4 73, 481 ( 7th Cir. 1996); B a skervill e, 50 F. 3d at 432. Giv en the f acts and ci rcum sta nces b e f o r e i t, S I U’ s r e s po ns e wa s ap pr o pr i a t e l y p r o mpt and enti re l y r eas onabl e. Kra ft was the firstuni ve r si tyo ffi ci alt o l ea r n o fthe hara ssm ent. H e o ffer ed to acc om p an y M i l l i gan t o tal k t o othe r unive rs i ty offi ci al s about the i nci dent, bu t M i l l i gan decl i ned. Kraft’ s deci si on notto pursue the m att erwas10 N o. 10

- 3862

re aso nabl e in l i ght o fM i l l i gan’ s decl i nati on. S ee Ja c ks on v. Cnty. of

Raci ne, 474 F
. 3d 493, 50 1- 02 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (h old in g t h at an em p loy er d id n otac t u n r e a s o n ab ly wher e i t ha d no ti ce o fa s upe r vi so r’s sex ua lha r as sment b u t t oo k n o a c tio n for th re e m on th s b ec au se n o v ict im wi sh ed to l o dge a f o r m alc o m pl aint )
. Ki ns elwas the next uni ver si ty offi ci alto be i nfo rm ed

. Because he had no a uthor i ty ove r M eye rs , Kins el i m m edi ate l y no ti fi ed K or opchak, wh o did have thatautho ri ty. K i nselal so ar r an g ed w ith Kra ft to ha ve M i l l i g anwor ki n the seco nd fl oo r sto ckr oo m i nstea d ofthe fi rs t fl oo r sto ckro om , w hi ch w as acr oss the hal l fro m M eye rs ’ offi ce; th i s i s si g ni fi ca nt, as M i l l i g an ha d ex per i en ced no ne g at i ve e nc o unt er s wi thM ey er s whi l e workin g i n the sec o nd fl o o rs t o c k r o o m. Ko r o pc ha kme twi th M i l l i g an and his m othe r fi ve days l ate r. W hen M i l l i gan dec id ed to p u r s u e h is c om p lain t, K or op c h ak im m ed iat ely w ar ned M eye rs and conducted an investi gat i on; thr ee we e k s l a t e r, Ko r o pc ha ki s s ue d a l e t t e ro fr e pr i man d, r equi r i ngM ey er s to a tt en d s ex ua lha r as sm en t tr aini ng and fo rbi d d ing hi m fro m co ntact w i th stud ent work er s. W hen SI U l ate r l earn ed t hat M eye rs had conta cted M i l l i gan a n d h ad not com ple ted tr ai ni ng, the Ch ancel l or ba nne d M ey er s from campus. And when M ey er s co nti nu e d t o a pp e a ro n c a mpus , the u ni v e r s i t y p o l i ce r e mo v e d h i m. SI U’ s r e s po ns e i s o n pa rwi th e mpl o y e rr e s ponses hel d rea sonab l e in sev er alo fo ur ca ses . S ee Su t he r l and, 632 F. 3d at99 5 ( w here the em plo yerr epri m anded th e ha r as se ra nd e ns ur ed th atthe ha r as se r ’ s an d the hara sse d’s schedule s ove rl apped o nl y ni nety m i nutes perN o. 10

- 3862 11

w ee k); R o by v. CWI, Inc. , 57 9 F
. 3d 779, 78 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( wh er e th e empl o y err equi r ed th e ha r as se rt o a tt en d tr aini ngc l as se s an d m i ni m i ze d the o ve r l ap be twe enthe h ar as se r’s an d th e ha ra ss ed ’s w or k s c h ed u les ); Ber ry v . D el ta Airl ine s, Inc. , 26 0 F
. 3d 803, 81 2- 13 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( whe r e the e mpl o y e ri nv e s t i g a t e d the al l e g a t i o ns a nd , wi th i n a m ont h, r equi r ed th e ha r as se rt o wat cha tr aini ngv i deo and en su r ed th atthe ha r as se r ’ s an d the hara sse d’s w or k s chedules o ver l apped o nl y ni nety m in u te s p er d ay ); M cKenzie, 92 F. 3d at 480-81 (w h e re the e m plo ye r i ssued a m em or andu m to al lem plo yee s r eg ar di ng s ex ua l ha rass m en t an d pr o hibi te d t he h ar as se r fro m co n t a c tin g t h e h ar as se d ); S a x t o n v . A T &T Co. , 1 0 F
. 3d 52 6, 5 35

- 36 ( 7th Cir. 1 99 3) ( wher e th e em plo yerco m ple ted the invest i gat i on in two w eek s an d t o o ka ct i o n wi th i n fi ve wee k s, tr an sfer r i ngthe ha rasser to a d iffer e n t d ep artm en t). M il li gan offers th re e re aso ns wh y thi s ca se w ar ra nts a di ffer ent r esul t. Each f ai l s t o persuade. Fi rs t, M i l l i gan c onte nd s that Kinse land K or opchak at te m p te d to d isc ou ra g e h im from p u rs u in g h is com plain t aga i nst M eye rs . Kinselto l d the M i l l i gans that M eye rs o nce had been a gr eatpro fess orand coul d not be he l d res ponsibl e forhi s con d uct due to hi s co m prom i sed m en tal sta te; Koro pchak as ked M i l l i gan whether ther e were any witnesse s t o the a l l ege d haras sm en t, m ade hi m r epe at edly a ffirm tha t he want ed to pur su e a com pla i nt, and em phasi zed M eye rs ’ i m port ance t o SI U
. Dra w ing reaso na ble i nferen ces in M il li gan ’s f avor, th e r ec o r d s uppo r ts the no ti o n tha t Ki ns ela nd K or o p c h ak attem p ted to discou rage M il li gan from pu r-12 N o. 10

- 3862

su ing the m atter bec au s e i t w ou ld em barrass and harm an i m port ant m em bero fthe unive rs i ty com m unity. I n som e cases , s u c h d iscoura gem en t m ight be su ffi ci ent t o re nd eran e m plo yer ’s res ponse unre aso nabl e, especi al l y i fco up l ed w i th a sta l l ed or b i ase d i nvest i gati on. S ee V

ance, 64 6 F
. 3d at 472 ( the r eas onabl eness o f an em p l oye r’ s invest i gat i on m ay be a j ury questi on w here the i nvest i gat i on w as bia sed, with “ al lti es [ going] to th e d isc rim in at or ”) ; P orte r v. E ri e Foo ds Int’l, Inc. , 57 6 F.3 d 6 2 9, 63 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (“a p ro m p t in ve st iga tio n is the ha llm ark o fa re aso nabl e co rr ecti ve acti on”) ( i nter nal q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); Sm ith , 18 9 F
. 3d at 535 ( “J ust as a n e m pl o y ermay es ca pe l i ab i l i tye ve n i fha r as sment re c u rs d es p i t e it s b es t e ffor ts , so it c an als o b e liab le if the har ass m ent for tuito u sl y s tops, but a j ury deem s i ts re sponse to have f al l en be l ow the le velof due car e. ”)
. N ot so here

. The r eco rd i nd isp u ta bl y s how s that tw o othe r S I U offi ci al s wer e qui te he l pful in sh eph er di ngthe M i l l i gans thro ug h the com pla i nt pro cess . Phel ps, fro m th e A ffirm ative A ction an d Eq ua l E m p lo y m en t O p p ort u n i t y O f f i c e , p r o v i d e d g u i d a n c e r e g a r d i n gth e c o mpl aintpr o ce ss a nd e nc o ur ag ed th e M i l l i g an s to pur su e a f o r m alc o m pl aint
. Co nnl ey, the o m budsman, c o unsel ed M i l l i gan a nd se rv ed as an i nter m edi ar y b etween Ko r o pc ha ka nd M i l l i g a n. Mo r e o v e r, de s pi t e the i ra pp aren t d iscoura gem en t of M il li gan ’s com p lai nt, K insel’s an d K or op c h ak ’s re sp on se s w er e o th er w ise rea so n ab le and effecti ve. Re g a r dl e s s o fw hat h e s a i d athi s m eet i ng with th e M il li gan s, K insel set the inve stigative m ach ineryN o. 10

- 3862 13 i n mot i o n befo reth e m ee tin g b y re fer rin g M illiga n ’s a llegations to K orop ch ak, th e offici al w ith d iscip lin ary author i ty ove r M ey ers. Kinselal so ar ra nged f orM i l l i gan to w or k e xcl usi vel y in the seco nd fl oo r sto ckr oo m , away fro m M eye rs ’ o ffi ce o n the fi rs t fl oo r. Fo r hi s par t, after confi rm i ng tha t M i l l i gan wis hed to p rocee d, K or opchak i m m edi ate l y warned M eye rs and prom ptl y invest i gat ed th e m at te r, c o m pl et i ngthe i nv es ti g at i o n a nd t ak i ng re m edi alact i on abou t th re e weeks l ate r. S ee P o rter, 576 F. 3d at 636. T h e reco rd i nd i sputabl y s how s that nei therKinselnorKoro pchak st al l ed SI U ’ s handl i ng o f M i l l i g an ’ s ch ar g e i n anyway . Al so , the r ec o r d c o nt ains no e vi dence thatthe i nvest i gat i on was bi ase d against M i l l i ga n . C f. Va nce, 646 F. 3d at 472. To the contr ar y, SIU vin dica ted M i l l i gan’ s co m pla i nt bydeter m i ni ng tha t M eye rs had vi ol ate d i ts sexualhar ass m ent pol i cy, by prohibi ti ng hi m fro m co ntac t w i th stud ents, and, wh en Me y e r s r e fu s e d t o c o mp l y, b y b a n n i n gh i m fr o m c a mp u s. C f. EEO C v
. Mgmt
. Hos pi t al i ty of Ra c i n e, In c. , 66 6 F. 3d 422, 43 4- 36 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( hol ding that m anage m ent’ s f ai l ure to i nvest i gat e a nd r epor t inci dents o f sexualhar ass m ent m ade the em plo yer ’ s re sp onse unrea son able). Se cond, M i l l i gan c onte nd s that S I U ’ s r esponse was i neffecti ve becaus e it did notpre vent al lco ntact between hi m and M eye rs . Thi s a rgum ent f ai l s be cause SI U was not re quir ed to com ple tel y insul ate M i l l i gan fro m M eye rs . S ee S u t he r l and, 63 2 F
. 3d at 995 ( hol ding that th e empl o y er ’ s r es po ns e was r ea so nabl e e ven wher e th e ha r as se d e m pl oyee per i o di ca l l y ha d t o wor ki n the h ar as se r’s ge n er al v icin ity ); R oby, 579 F.3d a t 7 86 (sam e); B erry, 26 0 F
. 3d at 813 (sa m e)
. Rather, the l aw r equi re d14 N o. 10

- 3862 onl y that S I U ’ s r esponse b e “ re aso nabl y l i kel y t o prevent future hara ssm ent. ” P a rki ns v . Civ il C o nstr u cto rs of Ill
. , Inc. , 16 3 F
. 3d 1027, 10 36 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 8) ; se e a l so Va nce, 646 F.3d at47 1; Saxt on , 10 F. 3d a t 536 ( “W hatev er re aso ns the re m i ght b e forthe com pan y’s fa i l ure to tak e a dd itio n al s teps .
. . ar e i rr el evantabs ent e vi dence su gg es tin g t h at th e [a c tio n ta ke n ] w as n otrea so n ab ly l i k e l y t o p r e v e nt t h e h a r a s s me n tfr o m r e c u r r i n g . ” )
. As th e ab o ve - ci te d pr ec ede nt s es tabl i sh, the a ss i g nm en t of M illiga n to th e s ec on d f loo r st oc kr oo m , th e re p rim and, the t ra i ni ng r equi re m ent, and the goo d fa i th effor ts to m inim ize M eyers’ con tact w ith M il ligan w ere suffi ci ent under the c i rcum sta nces. In f act, after K or o pc ha k ’ s me e t i ngwi th the Mi l l i g a ns , Mi l l i gan su ff ered no fur th ers ex ua lha r as sment
. Se e P o rter, 57 6 F. 3d at 6 37 (“Ther e i s no questi on that a st oppage o f hara ssm ent s how s e ffecti venes s.” ) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itt ed ); Sm ith , 18 9 F
. 3d at 535. N ori s there any ev id en ce that S I U ’ s r esponse was an un en forced sham

. W he n SIU discov er e d that M eyers ha d no t co m pl et ed th e r equi r ed se xua lha r ass m en t tr aini nga nd ha d c o nt ac te d M i l l i g anto a skwhethe rhe w as th e com p lai na nt, the C ha nc ell or pu nish ed M eyers fu rt h er , ba n n in g h im from ca m p u s. SIU en for c ed th is ba n a nd r emov ed M ey er s fr o m c ampus whene ve rhe w as se en. A t m ost, S I U m i ght b e f aul ted f ornot f o l l o wi ngup so o ne rt o s ee i fM ey er s had c o m pl et ed th e tr ai ni ng. S ti l l, S I U ’ s o ver al lr esponse

— th e i nv es ti g at i o n, th e p ro h ibit ion on co n ta c t w ith st u d en ts , th e im p os iti on o fthe tr ai ni ng r equire m en t, and, ul ti m ate l y, the ban fr o m c a mpus

— co m pr i se d a r ea so nabl e r es po ns e to theN o. 10

- 3862 15

eve nts a s they unf ol ded

. S ee Saxt on , 10 F. 3d at 536. No r e a s o n ab l e j u r y c o u l d fi n d th a t S I U ’ s f a i l u r e t o i mm ed i at ely l ea r n o fM ey er s’ no nc o m pl i an ce wi ththe tr ain i n g r eq u ire m en t re n d er ed its res p on se p at en tly i n e ffe c t i v e o ra s h a m. O u r d iss en tin g colle ag u e m ain ta in s th at a j u r y co u ld fin d th at K or op c h ak ’s le tt er of re p rim an d w as an ins u ffici ent r esponse i n l i ght o fM eye rs ’ “e ar l i erhi sto ryo f untow ar d conduct, a hi sto rythat had pers i ste d despite an ea rl i erl ett ero fr epri m and, an ea rl ier enco unter w i th ano therstud ent a nd num er ous o therinfo rm al c o mp l a i n t s b y s t a ffme mb e r s . ” D i s s e n t i ngo p . 2 8

- 2 9
. We doubt that M eye rs ’ al l ege d his tory o fi m properco nd uct i s p r o pe r l y c o ns i de r e d in e v a l ua t i ngthe r e a s o nab l e ne ss of SIU ’s re sp on se . A s a n init ial m at te r, M illiga n ’s a p p ell at e br i efa ffi r m at i ve l y mai nt ains tha t “Mi l l i g ani s th e onl y per son w ho co m pla i ned ofse xual hara ssm en t by D r. M ey er s.” M illiga n B r . 1 2; se e also i d

. a t 11 , 1 8 ( ar g ui ng th at evi den ce r eg ar di ngM ey er s’ s uppo se d ha r as sment o fa fe mal e Ch e mi s t r y De pa r t ment empl o y e e i s “ i na dm i ssibl e hea rs ay” )
. I t i s t rue, as the diss en t ob serves , that M i l l i g anmade th i s po i nti n a ddr es singa diff er en t iss ue, i
. e. , wh etherM eye rs was an “e qual opportunity” hara sse r and thus w hetherhis haras sm ent o fM i l l i gan w as bas ed on sex . Bu t stil l, hav ing argu ed f or t hatpu rpose that he was “the o nl y per son w ho co m p lained of se x u al h ar as sm en t b y D r. M ey er s,” it w ou ld h av e la in poor l y in M i l l i gan’ s m outh t o sw i tch g ear s a nd arg u e, f or the p ur po s e o fc ha l l e ng i ngthe a de qu a c y o fS I U’ s r esponse to hi s s i tuati on, th at h e w as notthe onl y per son to have com pla i ned ofM eye rs ’ har ass m ent.16 N o. 10

- 3862 A s i t turns o ut, M i l l i gan di d not m ake thatar gum ent, ei therh er e or i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. H i s f ai l ure to do so f or fei ts the a rgum ent. S ee E sco ba r v. Ho lder, 65 7 F
. 3d 53 7, 5 48 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( “the g overn m en t di d no t ar g ue th is an d so th is p oin t is forfe ite d ”); U nite d State s v. B ullock, 63 2 F
. 3d 10 04, 1 01 4 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 011) ( “b ec au se the gov er nm ent did not ar gue that ther e w as probable c ause to j usti fy the pre

- sea rch de te n ti on, . . . i t has for fei ted th at ar gum ent. ”)
. The di sse nt m ai ntai ns thatther e is no f o r fei tu r e be ca us e “Mi l l i g anr ai se d a dequa te l y the argu m en t tha t the U niversity’s resp ons e to M e y ers’s att acks was in ad equate
. . . ” Di sse nti ng o p. 29 n. 4. But as we ha ve he l d o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns , the f o r fei tu r e do ct r i ne appli es not onl y t o a l i ti gant’ s f ai l ure to ra i se a g ener al ar gum en t

— here , thatS I U ’ s r esponse was i nadequ ate , r en der i ngi t li ab l e f o rM ey er s’ ha r as sment

—but al so to a li tigant ’s f ail ure to adv an ce a sp ecifi c p oint in sup p ort of a g en er ala r g um en t

— here , that SI U ’ s re sponse w as in ad eq u a t e d u e, in pa rt, to M eyers’ earli er history of un tow ard conduct. S ee Puff

e rv. Al l s t at eIns . Co. , 675 F
. 3d 709, 71 8 ( 7th Ci r . 20 12 ) ( “We hav e a l so re co g ni ze d tha t r ai singa n i ss ue inge n er al t er m s is n otsu fficie n t t o p re se rv e s p ec ific ar gum en ts that wer e no t pr ev i o us l ypr es en te d. ”) ( ci ting Fe dnav Int ’ l Lt d. v. Cont ’ l Ins . Co. , 624 F. 3d 834, 841 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 )); Hannem ann v. S. D oor Cn ty. Sch. D is t. , 67 3 F. 3d 746, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( “a party‘ w ai ve[ s] the abi l i ty to m ake a speci fi c ar gum ent forthe fi rs t tim e on a pp eal wh en th e pa r tyf ai l ed to pr es en t th ats pec i fi c ar g um en t to the di str i ct c ourt, ev en tho ugh the i ss u e m ay have been bef or e the di str i ct c ourti n m or e gener alte rm s’ ”) ( quoti ng Fe dnav Int ’ l Lt d. , 624 F. 3d at 841) ( al ter atio n inN o. 10

- 3862 17

or i gi nal); Ali ot o v. Town of Lis b on , 65 1 F
. 3d 715, 72 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ [ w] e a pp l y [ the f o r fe i t ur e ] r ul e where a partyf ai l s t o d ev elop argum ents re l ate d to a di scr ete iss u e” ); D o m k a v. P o rtag e C nty ., Wis. , 52 3 F. 3d 776, 783 n. 11 (7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng L i b e r ty v i l l e Dats u n S a l e s , Inc . v. N i s s an M otor Corp. , 77 6 F
. 2d 735, 73 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) , f or th e p ro p os i t i o n th at “w h er e a p ar ty rais es a sp ec ific ar gum ent forthe fi rs t t i m e o n appeal, i t i s wai ved ev en th ou gh the ‘gen eral i ssu e’ w as before the d is t r ic t cou rt”); 49 01 C o rp. v. To w n o

f C i c e ro , 220 F.3d 522 , 529 (7th C ir. 2000 ) (sam e). I n any eve nt, wh ate verhi sto ryo f“unto w ar d con du ct” M eyers m ight ha ve h a d d id not ren d er K orop ch ak’s re pri m and l ett eran insuffi ci ent r esponse to the si tuatio n b efore hi m . In 199 5, Koro pchak i ssued a l ett ero f re pri m and to M eye rs f orte l l i ng o ffensi ve j oke s that m ayha ve bee n s ex ua li n n atur e. The r ec o r d c o nt ains n o e vid en c e o f an y ot h er ina p p ro p ria te c o n d u c t u n til 20 05 , whens ev er als tu den ts a nd s ta ffmem be r s i nform all y com p lai ne d abou t M eyers’ beh a v ior. H ow ever, it app ears from the record that those stud e n t s and staff m em bers

— i ncludi ngthe femal e Che m i st r y De par tment em plo yee r efer enced abo ve

— d ec lin ed to p u rs u e t h eir c om p lain ts . A ga in st th is b ac kd ro p , K or op c h ak ’s d ec isi on t o iss u e a r epri m and l ett erwas re aso nabl y l i kel y t o preve nt future hara ssm ent. A fteral l, the 1995 l ett er had been e ffecti ve

— i t curbed offensi ve behavi orby M eye rs f orte n yea rs . Thir d, M i l l i gan no tes thatKraft, Kinsel, and K or opchak w er e poo rl y v er sed i n SI U ’ s s exual har ass m ent pol i cy18 N o. 10

- 3862 and did not f ol l ow itpro perl y. W hile that a pp ear s t o be t r u e t o s o me d e g r ee , “[ o ] u rf o c u s . . . i s o n wh e th e r[ S I U] re sp on d ed p ro m p tly an d effe c tiv ely to th e in c id en t,” P o rter, 57 6 F
. 3d at 636, noto n w h et h er i t co m pli ed w i th i ts o wn i nt e r na lp o l i c y . T he f a i l ur e t o f o l l o w i nt e rnal pol i cy does not m att erso l ong as the e m plo yer ’ s r espon se is o ther w i se re aso nabl e under Tit l e VI I, wh i ch i t was her e. Se e g ener al l y Res tat em ent ( Third ) o fTor ts: Phys. & Em ot. H ar m . § 13 cm t. f( 2010 ) (ev i dence of i nter nalst andards “d oes notse t a hi gherst andard of care for the act or”). I n holdi ngtha t S I U i s en ti tl ed to j udg m en t o n the Ti tl e VI Ic l ai m , w e a ckno wl edg e a nd sha r e o urdi ss en ting col l eague’ s co ncer n w i th th e v ulne rabi l i ty ofM i l l i gan and student w or ker s l i ke h im
. That s ai d, the a pp ro ach r ec o m m en ded by th e d iss en t

— m ade m ani festbyi ts sugge sti on that a l though S I U ’ s a ctions m i ght ha ve been su ffici en t in som e em p loym en t situation s, it w as insu ffi ci en t where the pl aint i ffi s a stude ntwor k i ngo n a co l l eg e ca m pus

— woul d thr ea te n t o c arve a hi g he rs ta ndard of pr ote cti on f orstud ent work er s than f oro ther p lain tiffs . W e d o n otbe liev e i t i s n ec es sa ry to ta ke th is st ep. A br ea cho ft r us t i n as tu den t wor ke nv i r o nm ent i nd eed can have dir e conse quences, but so can br eaches oftr us ti n a my r i a d o fs i t ua t i o ns , s uc h a s tho se i nvol vi ng i nter ns, pro bati onar y work er s, r ecenthi re s d esp erate t o a t tain long-term em p loym en t, or m ore ex p er ien c ed w or ke rs n otw an tin g t o jeop ar d i z e th eir pensi ons. M any i fnotm osthar ass m ent c ase s invol ve al l ega ti ons that som eo n e in a pos i ti on o fpow erhar ass ed so m eo n e e lse for w h om j ob ret en tio n is an im p or ta n t ifN o. 10

- 3862 19

no tp a r a mou ntc o ns i de r a t i on . T he o r di na r y s t a nd a r ds gov er ni n g sexualhar ass m ent c l ai m s t ake acc ount o f thi s dynam i c, and thus need no m odi fi cati on wh en th e plaintiffi s a stu d en t w orker. B ec au se su m m a r y ju d gm en t is w ar ra n te d u n d er T itle VI I, the Tit l e I X haras sm ent c l ai m r equi re s l i ttl e d iscussi on. S I U can be he l d l i abl e u n d er Ti tl e I X f orM eye rs ’ h ar as sm en t on ly if it ac te d w ith “d elib er at e in d iffer en c e.” G eb se r v. Lago Vist a Indep. Sch. D is t. , 524 U
. S. 274, 290 (1998 ); see al so D oe - 2 v
. M cCl e an Cnty. U ni tD i s t
. No. 5 Bd. of D irs. , 593 F.3d 507, 512 (7th C ir. 2010). D eliberat e in d if

fer ence i s a m or e ex ac ting sta nd ar d than the negl i gence st an d ar d g o v er n in g e m p loy er liab ility u n d er T itle V II. See A rnett v . Webster, 65 8 F
. 3d 742 , 75 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “De l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce i s m o re tha n n eg l i g en ce a nd ap p ro aches i ntenti onalwrongdoi ng. ”) ( i nter nalquotati on m ar ks om i tte d). Thus, the f act that SI U ’ s r esponse w as rea so n ab le u n d er T itle V II n ec es sa rily a b so lve s it o fl i ab i l i tyunde rTi tl e I X.

B . R e t a l i a t i o n C l a i ms Ti tl e VI If o rbi ds ane m pl o y erfr o m di sc r i m i nating aga i nst an em plo yee w ho “ opposed any pract i ce” prohibi t e d b y T i t l e V I Io rwh o “ mad e a c ha r ge, t e s t i fi e d, ass i ste d, orpart i ci pated i n any m anner i n an i nvest i gat i o n, p r o c e e di ng, o rh e a r i ngu nd e r[ Ti t l e V I I ]
. ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 000e

- 3( a)
. “The a nti re tal i ati on pro vi si on s eek s t o preve nt em plo yeri nter fer ence w ith ‘unfett er ed acce ss’ to T i t l e V I I ’ s r e me d i a lme c h a n i s ms . . . b y p r o h ib i t i n ge mp loy er ac tio n s t h at are like ly ‘t o d et er vic tim s o f d isc rim i-20 N o. 10

- 3862

na ti o n fr o m c o m pl aini ng to the EEOC, ’ the c o ur ts , a nd thei r em plo yer s. ” B url ington N
. & Sa nta Fe R y. C o. v. White, 548 U
. S. 53 , 68 ( 2006 ) ( q u oting Robi ns on v. Sh e l l O i l Co. , 519 U
. S. 33 7, 34 6 ( 1997 ) )
. Ti tl e I X ’s p ro hibi ti on o n dis

c rim in at ion “o n th e b as is of s ex ” like w ise co ve rs “ r et aliat [ i o n] a gainst a pe r so n beca usehe c om pla i ns o fse x dis

c r i mi na t i on. ” Jackson v. Birm ingham Bd
. of Educ. , 54 4 U
. S. 167, 174 (2005 ). M illig a n m ay fore st all su m m ar y jud gm en t o n h is Tit l e VI Ir eta l i ati on cl ai m thr ough the di re ct o r i nd ire ct m etho ds ofpro of

. S ee Tur ne rv. TheSa l oon, Lt d. , 59 5 F.3 d 67 9, 68 7-8 8 (7 th C i r. 20 10 ). M illiga n p u rs u es on ly the di re ct m etho d o n appeal

. U nd er that m etho d, M i l l i gan “m ust pre sent evi dence of( 1) a sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty ; ( 2) a mate r i al l y a dve r se a ct i o n t ak enb y the em p loy er ; an d (3) a c au sa l co n n ec tio n be tw ee n t h e t w o.” Id. at68 7 (inter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d); se e a l so Cole m an v. D onah oe, 6 67F
. 3d 83 5, 8 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 012 )
. The Tit l e VI Ir eta liat i on fra m ew or k a pp l i es w i th equalf or ce to re tal i ati on cl aim s b ro ught under Ti tl e I X. S ee Pape l i no v. A lba ny Col l
. of

Phar m acy of

U ni on U ni v. , 6 3 3 F
. 3 d 8 1 , 91 ( 2d Cir

. 20 11 ); Lu ce r o v. Ne t t l eCr e e k S ch
. Corp. , 56 6 F
. 3d 72 0, 72 8-3 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); F r a z i e rv . F a i rh a v e n S c h
. C o mm. , 27 6 F .3d 52 , 67 (1 st C i r . 20 02 ). Th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly he l d that M i l l i g an ’ s r et al i at i o n c l ai m s f o unde ro n the th i r d e l ement, c au sa ti o n. M ill i gan c an es tabl i sh causa ti on a t the sum m ar y j ud gm en t stage b y show ing tha t his com p lai nt s abou t M eyers “w er e a subst anti alo r m oti vating fa c tor” i n SI U ’ s deci si on t o i nfo rm M i l l i gan in A p ril20 08 that he co uld notN o. 10

- 3862 21

re turn t o hi s che m i calst ock ro om p osi ti on in Fal l20 08. Lei tgen v. Francis can Skem p Healthcare, Inc. , 63 0 F
. 3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 2 011) (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). “T h is m ay be d on e v i a d ire c t e vid en c e, w h ich w ou ld entai lso m et h i ng ak i n to an a dm i ssi on bythe em plo yer ( ’ I ’ m fi r i n gy o u b e c a u s e y o u h a d th e n e r v e t o a c c u s e me ofse x dis cri m i nati on! ’ )
. ” Cole m an , 6 6 7F
. 3 d a t8 6 0 ( s o me i nter nal quotati on m ar ks om i tte d); se e a l so Nagl ev. Vi l l
. of C a l u m e t P a rk, 55 4 F
. 3d 1106 , 11 14 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Dir ect evi dence i s “ ra re i nd eed, ” ibi d

. , and M i l l i gan p re sents non e h e r e . Ca us a t i o n a l s o ma y b e e s t ab l i s he d “ b y p re senting a ‘convi nci ng m osa i c’ o fci rcum sta nti alev i dence th atwoul d pe r m i t th e sa m e i nfer en ce [ o fr etal ia ti o n] w i thout the e m plo yer ’ s a dm i ssi on. ” Cole m an , 66 7 F
. 3d at 860 ( som e inter nal quota ti on m ar ks om i tte d). S uch ci r cumst an ti ale vi den ce may consi sto f( 1) “ su spi ci o us ti m i ng, am bi guous sta tem ents or alo r w ri tte n, behav i or to w ar d or c om m en ts d ire c te d atoth e r em p loy ee s in the pr ote cted gro up , and other bi ts and piec es fro m w h ich an in f e re n c e o f ca u sa tio n m igh t b e d ra w n,” (2) “ ev id en c e s h ow in g t h a t th e e m p loy er sy st em at ica lly tr eat ed oth er , si m i l ar l y s i tuate d .

. . em plo yee s be tte r, ” o r ( 3) “evi dence that

. . . the em plo yer ’ s j usti fi cati on [ f or the a dvers e a cti on was] pre textual
. ” S i l ve r m an v. B d. of Educ. of Ci ty of Chi cago , 63 7 F
. 3d 729, 73 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 11) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d); se e a l so Cole m an , 66 7 F
. 3 d a t 8 6 0
. T h e a p p r o p r i a t e f o c u s “ i s n o t wh e th er t he evi dence offer ed i s di re ct o r ci rcum sta nti albut ra ther w he th er the ev iden ce p oin t s d irectly to a discrim inatory re aso n f orthe em plo yer ’ s a cti on. ” A ta nu s v. P erry, 5 20 F. 3d 662, 67 1 (7th Cir

. 20 08) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks22 N o. 10

- 3862

om itte d); se e a l so D avi s v. Time War ne rCab l eof Se
. Wis., L
. P. , 651 F.3d 664 , 672 (7th C ir. 2011). M i l liga n re l i es on three pi eces o fci rcum sta nti al ev i den ce t o e st ab l i shc au sa ti on: ( 1) the s us pi ci o us t i m i ng between hi s Octo ber20 07 and J anuary20 08 com pla i nts ab o utM ey er s, o n the o ne ha nd, a nd Kr aft’ s i nf o r m i ng hi m i n Apr i l2 00 8 th athe woul d no t be r et ained i n the c h e mi c a l s t o c k r o o ms i n F a l l 2 0 0 8 , o n th e o th e r ; ( 2 ) t he fa c t t h a t SI U hired him to w ork i n th e G rad ua te Sch ool’ s ad m iss ion s o ffice an d th e u n ive rs i ty ’s t ick etoffic e in Fa ll 20 08 d es p i t e h is s u p p os ed ly p oo r p er for m an c e in the c hem i calst ock ro om s; and ( 3) the f act that M i l l i gan i s the o nly s t ud e ntf o rwh o m Kr a fte v e rc o nd uct e d a perf or m ance r evi ew . M i l l i gan for fei ted any re l i ance o n th e sec on d an d th ird p iec es of evid en c e be c au se h e d id n o tr a i s e t h e m in h i s d i s t r i c tc o u r tb r i e fo p p o s i n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent. S ee Li b e r l e s v. Cook Cnty. , 7 0 9 F
. 2 d 1 122, 1126 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83) ( “It is a wel l

- set tl ed rul e that a partyo pp osing a sum m ar y j u d gm ent m oti on m ust in for m th e t ria l j u d ge of th e re as on s, leg al or fac tu al, w h y s u m m ar y jud gm en t s h ou l d n otbe en te re d . I f it does not do so , and l ose s the m ot ion , i t ca nnot r ai se such r eas ons on a pp ea l.”); se e a l so Chi. Reg. Counc i l of C a rpen ters v. Vill . of Sch a um burg, 64 4 F
. 3d 353, 356 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ) (sa m e); Indi a Br e wer i e s , Inc . v. M i l l e rBr e win g Co. , 61 2 F .3d 65 1, 65 9 n .2 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ) (sa m e); Am rhe i n v . He al t h CareSe r v. Corp. , 546 F. 3d 854, 859 ( 7th Cir. 20 08) (sa m e); D om ka , 523 F.3d at 783 ( sam e). T he secon d and third pieces of evid en ce are i m m ate ri ali n any eve nt. There i s no evi dence thatN o. 10

- 3862 23 th o se who hi r ed M i l l i g an in Fa l l2 00 8 k ne w w hy he no l onge r w or ked i n the chem i calst ock ro om s; ev en if they ha d s uch k n o wl e d g e , p o o r p er f o r m an ce i n t he chem i calst ock ro om s doe s no t nec ess ar i ly predi ct poo r perf or m ance in the les s d anger ous pos i ti ons M i l l i gan ass um ed in the adm i ssi ons and ti cketo ffi ces. Thus, M i l l i gan’ s hirin g in Fa l l20 08 does not gi ve ri se to a r easonab l e infe re nce that he w as fi re d fo r re aso ns o ther than poo r p er for m ance. The sa m e ho l ds f orthe f act that M i l l i gan i s the o nl y e m plo yee thatK ra ft e ver su bj ecte d to a perform an ce review
. For all t he record shows, Kraft co n d ucted a perf or m ance r evi ew bec ause M il li gan de served i t. T he re i s no e v id e nc e tha t K raft had otherem plo yee s with com parabl e per f or m ance p r o b l e ms

— w eak at tendance a n d acc i dents with d an ge ro u s m at er ials

— w h o w ere equ all y d eserving of a perf or m ance re vi ew but did notr ecei ve one. Tha t l ea ve s o nl y t i m i ng . In e g r eg i o us c as es , s us pi ci o us ti m i nga l o ne mightc r ea te a t r i ab l e issue o n c au sa ti o n. Se e Lou de r m ilk v. Be s tPal l e tCo. , 636 F.3d 312 , 315 (7th C ir. 2011 ) ( “Occ as i onal l y, . . . an a dvers e a cti on co m es so cl ose on the heel s of a prot ecte d a ct th at an infer ence of c au sa tio n is se n sib le.” ); B o um ehd i v. P la s t a g H o ldi ng s, LLC, 48 9 F
. 3d 781, 79 3 (7th C i r. 20 07)
. But i t r ar el y doe s. Se e C o lem an , 66 7 F
. 3d at 860 ( “W e hav e o ften invoke d the gener al rul e that tem pora l proxi m i ty betw ee n an em p loyee’ s pro tect ed acti vi ty and an adver se em plo ym ent acti on i s ra re l y suffi ci ent to show that th e fo rm er cau sed the latter.”) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ); M os e rv. Ind. D ep’ tof Co rr. , 4 0 6 F. 3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2005 ) ( “ s us pi c i o us t i mi nga l o ne r a r e l y i s s uffi c i e ntto24 N o. 10

- 3862

c re at e a tria b le iss u e” ); W yn in g e rv. New V

entu re G ear, Inc. , 3 61 F. 3d 965, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( “ ‘ m er e t em pora l proxi m i ty’ i s no t en ou gh to es tabl i sh a genui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act” )
. U nd ero rdinaryci rcum sta nces, “[ c] l ose te m po r alpr o xim i typr o vi des e vi den ce o fc au sa ti o n a nd m aype r m i t a pl aint i fft o s urv iv e su m m ary j udg m en t provided that th er e i s o th ere vi den ce that suppo r ts the i nfe re nce o fa causall i nk. ” Sc a ife v . Cook Cnty. , 44 6 F
. 3d 735, 74 2 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 6) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itted , em p ha sis add ed ). This i s no t the r ar e ca se w h er e t em pora lpro xi m i ty al one cre ate s a tr i abl e i ssue on causat i on. M ill i gan re c eiv ed n ot ice in A p ril 20 08 th at h e w ou ld n otret ain h is c h em ica l st oc kr oo m p os itio n ; th at w as ap p ro x im at ely si x months a fte rhi s l as t se xua l ha r as smentc o m pl aint i n O c t o b e r2 0 0 8 , a n d o v e rt wo mo n th s a ft e rh i s c o mp lain t i n J an u ar y 2 00 8 t h at M ey er s c on ta c te d h im in vio lat ion of th e le tt er of re p ri m a n d . W e p re vio u sly h av e h e ld th at a se ve n -w ee k in te rv al, st an d in g a lon e, is i nsuffi ci ent t o cre ate a m ateri ali ssue re gar ding causati on. S ee Argyropou l os v. Ci ty of Al t on , 53 9 F
. 3d 724, 73 4 (7th C ir. 2008). T he sam e resu lt i s w arran ted here, parti cul ar l y g ive n that SI U put f or th st ro ng and uncontr adi ct ed ev i den ce tha t Kra ft ha d g o od c au se t o de cl i ne to i nvite M il l i gan t o re turn in Fal l20 08

— M il li gan ’s wani ngi nt er es t i n the c he m i ca ls to ck r o o m j o b an d the acc iden t w ith th e li qu id n itrogen can ister.N o. 10

- 3862 25

Si nc e m y c ol l ea gue s i n the m aj or i t y ha ve pre t er m i t t ed a ny 1 di s c us s i on of the othe r re qui re m en t s ofa s ex ual ha ra s s m en t claim , I shall n ot ela b or ate o n th e m e rits of these elem en ts. Suffi c e i tt o s ay that, upon ex am i nat i on ofthe re c or d and the (co n tin u ed ...) I I I . Concl usio n M eye rs ’ tr eat m ent o fM i l l i gan

— assu m i ng i t o ccurr ed as M i l l i gan s ays

— w as d es p ica b le. If a c om p ar ab le sit u at ion w er e t o a ris e i n t h e fu tu re , SIU w ou ld be w ellad vis ed to foc u s s o l e ly on w h et h er th e a c c u sa tio n is valid a n d notatal lo n the accused’ s s tature on ca m pu s. Bu t a s s how n abo ve, S I U r esponded rea sonab l y t o M il li g a n ’s com p lai nt s abou t M eyers, and on th is r ecord a r eas onabl e j ury coul d not fi nd S IU l i abl e o n hi s har ass m ent c l ai m s. N orco uld a reas onabl e j ury fi nd f or M i l l i gan o n hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m s. A FFI RMED .

R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e, di ssenti ng. Thi s ca se prese nts m an y close qu estions of fact asses sm en t an d th erefore pr es en ts a j ur y ques ti o n. A cc o r di ng l y, I w o ul d re ve r se the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourtand re m and the ca se f or furtherpro ceedi ngs. 126 N o. 10

- 3862

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 rel evant ca se l aw , I am convinced, as m y coll eagues as sum e, th a t the othe r e l e m e nt s ha ve be e n m e t
. I no t e tha t the rec ord i n thi s c ase s uppor t s M r. M i l l i gan ’ s the or y thathe was the obj e c to fth e b e h a v i o r i n qu e s t i o n b e c a u s e th e p e r p e t r a t or re g a r d e d him as no t po ssessing the p hy sical attrib u tes usu ally a tt ri b u te d to so m eo n e o f th e m a le sex . Pri ceWat erhousev. Hop k i ns , 490 U.S
. 228, 250-52 (1989) ( plurali ty opinion) ( w om an ha rassed b eca u se she w as p erce iv ed as b eing no t suffi cien tly fem in in e), su p erse d ed in pa rt b y s t a tu te, Ci vi l Ri ght s Actof 1 9 9 1 , P u b . L . N o . 10 2 -1 6 6 , 10 5 St a t. 1 0 7 4
. I t is w ell -established that a n e m p loyer i s li able for a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent c re ate d by a n em p l oye e when th e empl o y erdo es no t r esp o nd pr o m ptly a nd ad eq u at ely to em p loy ee h ar as sm en t. Sutherla n d v. WalM a rt S to res, Inc. , 632 F.3d 99 0, 99 4 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); Port er v. E ri e Foo ds In t’ l, Inc. , 576 F.3d 629 , 636 (7th C ir. 2009). J us t as the s ev er i tya nd the pervasiven es s o fha r as sment m u st be as se ss ed in ligh t o f all th e c irc u m st an c es , see O ncale v. Sundo w nerO ff shoreSe rvs . , Inc. , 5 2 3 U. S
. 75 , 81 (19 98 ); Harris v. Forklif t Sys. , Inc. , 510 U
. S . 1 7, 23 (1993), th e as se ss m en t o f whethe ra r es po ns e to tha t ha r as sment ha s be enpr o m pt an d a dequa te m us t tak e i nt o a cc o unt all th e fa c t s a n d circ u m st an c es , see B erry v . D elta A irlines, Inc. , 2 6 0 F
. 3 d 8 03 , 81 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n gth a twe m ust “ ‘ deter m i ne wh etherthe em plo ye r’s to talr esponse was r ea so nabl e unde rthe c i r cum st an ce s as the n e xist ed ’ ”) ( quoti ng M cKe nzi ev. Il l i nois D ep’ tof Tr ans p. , 92 F.3d 473 , 480 (7th C ir. 1996)). The maj o r i tyo pi ni o n s ug g es ts tha t th e resp ons e i n the pr e s e ntc a s e c a n b e j us t i fi e d b e c a us e i ti s “ o n pa r ” withN o. 10

- 3862 27

re sp on se s d et er m in ed to be p ro m p t a n d a d eq u at e in o t h e r circ u m st an c es . M ajorit y O p . at 1 0. B u t s im p ly u t i l i z i n gr e med i a lt o o l s f o u n d a d e q u a t e i n o th e rc i r c u msta nces hardl y e stabl i shes that thos e t oo l s were adequate for th e p re se n t c as e. N or d oe s ites ta b lish th at th os e t oo ls w er e im ple m ented with suffi ci ent s ki l land sensi ti vi ty to c o ns t i t ut e a n a de qu a t e r e med y i n the s i t ua t i o n a th a nd

. A l though “ [ w ] e do not i gnor e hi nd si ght,

. . . the ult i m ate q u e s t i o n is w h et h er th e [e m p loy er ’s] re sp on se w as likely to s uc c e e d ex ante
. ” Suthe r l and, 632 F.3d at99 5; s e ealso P o rter, 576 F .3 d a t 6 37 ; B erry, 260 F.3d at81 1. T h e b as ic pu rpos e o fthe re m edy i s t o perm i t a n em plo yee to ge t o n wi ththe b us i ne ss o fmakinga l i vingwi th o ut the ex tr an eo us , a nd i l l eg al, i nt er feren ce o fthe ha r as sing ac tiv ity . Th e a b se n c e o f an ot h er at ta c k b y a p re d at or is no “ soluti on” i fthe em plo yer ’ s r em edy neverthel ess l eave s the v i cti m i n substa nti aland re as onabl e fearo fano ther im m in en t s tr ike

. Se eSmith v
. Sh e ahan , 1 8 9 F
. 3 d 5 29, 53 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “J ust a s a n em plo yerm ay esca pe l i abi l i ty eve n i fhar ass m ent r ecurs despit e i ts besteff or ts, so i t ca n al so b e l i ab l e i fthe ha r as smentf o r tu i to us l y s to ps, b ut a j ury d eem s i ts re sponse to have f al l en be l ow the l eve l of d u e c ar e.” ); see also B erry, 260 F.3d at 813 n.3 ( sam e). A c tio n ab le s ex u al h ar as sm en t o c c u rs w h en , un d er all the ci rcum sta nces, the acti ons of the hara sse r ar e so se ve r e o rpe r va si ve a s to c ha ng e th e vi ct i m ’ s te r m s an d c on d itio n s o f em p loy m en t. O ncale, 523 U .S . at 8 1. Inth is ca se , a m o ngtho se f ac ts a nd c i r cumst an ce s i s th e pl aintiff’s st at u s a s a st u d en t w or ke r w h os e t er m s a n d co n d iti ons ofem plo ym ent m ostcertai nl y incl ud ed the need28 N o. 10

- 3862

R .40 -5 at 11 (K o ro p ch a k D ep . 39 -4 0 ). 2 Id. at 12 (K o ro p ch a k D ep . 42 -4 5 ). 3 f ora w or k e nvi ro nm ent c om patibl e with hi s s tatus as a fi r st
- y ear, i nde ed, fi r st
- se m es te r, c o l l eg e stude nti n the academ i c depart m ent where he w or ked. A n i nsti tuti on of h igh er lea rn in g a ss u m es sp ec ial re sp o n s i b ilitie s fo r all stude nt s, b ute spe cia l l y unde r g r adua te s tu den ts , who und er tak e s uch a f or m ati ve educati onalexper i ence w ithin its w all s. A breac h o f t h a t trust, even i n a w ork envi ro nm ent, can have dire c onse quences t o a neo phyte i n the ha l l s o fhi g he re duca ti on. If se xua lha r as sment o c c u r s , a n d e s p e c i a l l y i fth e p e r p e t r a t o ri s a f a c u l t y me mb er , the U ni ver si ty has a re sponsibi l i ty to i m ple m ent a r e me d y th a tr e s t o r e s th e v i c t i m’ s ab i l i t yt o w o r kc o mfortably and effectively as a stu d en t w orker. O n th is rec or d , a j u r y w ell m ightc o nc l ude tha t th e i m ple m ente d d isci pline o fa l ett ero fr epri m and that f orbade furtherco ntact between the alleged per petra tor an d s tu den t wor k er s was a n ine ffec tive respo ns e to the s i t ua t i o n c o nfr o nt i ngthe s t ud e nt- wo r k e rv i c t i m a nd , unde r th e ci r cumst an ce s, pr es en te d l i tt l e ho pe o fr es to r i ng th e vi ct i m t o the t er m s an d c ondi ti o ns o fe m pl o y m en t that h e had a r i ght t o expect. In m aking thi s a sse ssm ent, the j u ry w oul d have the r i ght t o ass ess the al l ege d p er p et ra to r’s ea rlier h ist or y of u n to w ar d co n d u c t, a hi sto rythathad pers i st ed d espi te an ea rl i erl ett ero f r epr i m an d, a n e ar l i ere nc o unt erwi tha nothe rs tu den t

2 3 an d nu m erou s othe r i nform al com p lai nt s b y staffN o. 10

- 3862 29

R .40 -4 at 16 -1 7(K ra ft D ep . 61 -6 4 ); R .40 -7at 7 (K in se l D ep . 23 ). 4 T he m ajor ity cla im s that w e ou g h t n ot co nsid er th ese incidents i n determ ini ng w hetherSIU’ s res pon se w as adequ ate. I tdoe s s o by quo t i ng a s t at em en ti n M r. M i l l i gan ’ s b ri eftha the was “ the o nl y pe r s onw ho co m pl a i ne d ofs e x ua l h a r a s s m e ntby Dr. M ey er s . ” Appe l l ant ’ s Br. 12
. Tha ts t at em en twas m ade i n the c o n t e x to f M r . M i l l i g a n ’s e ffo r tt o r e sp o n d t o t h e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s view thatM eyers w as an “equal oppo rtunity” haras se r. There c an be no que s t i on thatM r. M i l l i ganr ai s ed a d equat el y the argum ent thatthe Un ivers ity’ s res pon se to M eyers ’ s att acks w as i nade qua t e, an d the re c or d m ake s c ry s t al c l ea r thati n the pe ri od betweenthe fi rs tl et t erof re pri m and i n 1 99 5 a nd the l et t erno w in ques ti on, M eyers pers is ted i n his untow ard cond uct t ow ard U niv ersity em p loy ees an d stud en ts. The record unequivo cal ly dem onst rates thatthe 1995 l ett er o f r e p r i m a n d d i d n o tqu ashM ey er s’s b a d b e h a v i o r . K o r o p c h a k ’s d ep osition say s that, w h en the 2 00 7 M illigan com p lain ts cam e in, K oropchak rec ei ved corre spond ence f rom th e D ean o fS c i e n c e n o t i n g t h a tth e D e a n h i ms e l fh a d , a ts o me u nsp ecified tim e, “p erso na lly o b serv ed D r. M ey ers casu ally t ou c hi ngfe m a l e m e m be r s o f[ the De a n’ s ] s t a ff ” an d i tm a de the s t a ff“ fe e l un c omf or t a bl e . ” R.40- 5 a t1 1 ( Kor op c ha k De p. 38 ). K or op ch ak d escrib ed the co rresp on d en ce as “ add i t i onal ev id en ce tha t w as suggestive of [ an ong oi n g] patt ern . ” Id. (K or op ch ak D e p . 39 ) (em p ha sis ad d ed ). In th eir d ep osition s, K raft and K ins el al so m enti on inci dents i n volving other staffm em b ers, non e of w hich resu lted in a form al co m p lain t, w ith out detai li ng w hen the behav ior took place

— al though it w a s cl ea rl y b efo re 2 0 0 7 w h en M r. M ill ig a n co m p la in ed . R .40 -4 a t 1 7(K r a f t D ep . 62 ); R .40 -7at6-7 (K in se l D ep . 18 -2 3 ). (co n tin u ed ...) m embe r s. The j ur y r ea son ab l y c o ul d c o nc l ude tha t th e

430 N o. 10

- 3862

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 D raw ing r eas onab le i nf erenc es i n M r. M il li gan’ s f avor, ther e i s c er t ai nl y e vi denc e f ro m wh ich a jur y c oul d have c onclu d ed tha t M ey ers’s con d u c t w a s p art o f a p atter n k no w n to SIU officials an d no t suffi cien tly co rrecte d b y p rior d i scip lina ry attem p ts. The m aj or i t y a c knowl edge s that“the r ec or d s uppor t s the 5 not i on thatK ins elan d Koropc hakat t em pt ed t o di s c our age M illigan fro m p u rsu ing the m atter b eca u se it w ou ld em b arr ass a n d h a rm an im p o rt a n t m em b er o f t h e u n iv er sit y co m m u n ity .” M aj ority O p. at 11- 1 2 . N ev erthele ss , the m aj ority is pers uad ed th a tS I U’ s r e s p o n s e i s a de q u a t e , a s a mat t e r o fl a w, b a s e d o n t wo othe r s ur ro undi ng f ac t s . Fi rs t, two uni ver s i t y em pl oye es , on e i n the Af fi rm at i ve Act i on Of fi c e and o ne anom buds m an, en c our age d the M i l l i gan s i n the c om pl ai ntpr oc es s onone occas ion an d c hecked in with Ko ropchak aft er the i nvesti gatio n h a d s ta rt ed t o d et er m in e i ts p ro g re ss. S ee id. a t1 2
. S e c on d, (co n tin u ed ...) si tuati on w as not going to be cured by yetan ot h er l ett er ofr epri m and. The j ury m ightc o nc l ude tha t th e stude nt wor k er, upo n h i s ar r i va la t th e Uni ve r si ty, f o und hi m sel fi n a s i tuati on in w hi ch an a tm ospher e o fse xual hara ssm ent a l re ady wa s preva l ent a nd with r espectto whi chthe Uni ve r si tyha d a do pte d, neg l i g en tly o rc o nsci ousl y, a de f

acto po lic y of la issez-fa ire
. Giv en the se c irc u m st an c es , th e jur y w ell m ightde cide tha t th e dec i si o n t o i ss ue y eta no th erl et te rof r epr i m an d c o nst i tu te d no th i ngmor e th ana n e ff o r t to mai nt ain the st at u s q u o w h ile p lac at in g t h e v ict im an d h i s f am ily. It m i ght w el l deter m i ne that the U ni ver si ty w as obl i ged to act ear l i erand w i th m or e s tr i ngent m easures. A fter 5N o. 10

- 3862 31

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 althoug h they r equire d repeated assu ra n ces thatM r. M il li gan wi s h e d t o p r o c e e d, Ki n s e l a n d Ko r opc hak su b se q u en tly offered re sp o nses that“w ere otherw isereas onab le and ef fect ive. ” Id. ( em phas i s adde d)

. The poi ntr em ain s thatthe m os ts en i or an d im p or tan t U niv ersity officials w ith w ho m M r. M illigan d ealt thr ougho uthi s or dea l di s c ou rag ed hi s goi ng for ward wi th the com plaint

. W hil e the ult im ate quest ion i s w hetherthe tot al re sp o n se w a s re a so n a b le u n d er th e c ir cu m st a n c e s , se e Berry v. D el t a A i rl i nes, Inc. , 260 F. 3d 803, 811 ( 7th Cir

. 2001) , the j ury c er t ai nl y had the ri ght t o as s es s whethe r the eff or t s of these Uni ver sity offi c i al s c ont ribut ed t o the i nade qua c y ofthe res pon se . all, the rem ed y ch osen by t h e U n iversity l eft the p erp etra to ro n the s ce ne , fr ee t o pr o wl the de par tment in s ea r cho fthe i ndi vi dualwho ha d c au se d the disc i plinaryact i on. Fe w fi rs t-se m est erco l l ege stud ents tack l e fi rs t- yea r chem i str y c ours es i n thi s a m bi ance. Th e Uni v e r s i t y ’ s f o l l o w- up r e s po ns e o fa n or der ba r r i ngthe a l l eg ed per pet r at o rfr o m the c ampus m i g ht convince the j ury that the Unive rs i ty’ s res ponse was i nde ed ade qu ate. On th e o th erha nd, the j ur y might det e r mi ne tha t thi s s e c o nd c o ur s e o f a c t i on was too
- l i ttl e- too
- l ate o r that the e nfo rce m ent o fthe barwas ha lf-hearte d or n egli gen tly l ax . Th e evide nc e of record w oul d supp or t e i thervi ew an d ther ef or e pr ese nts a j ur y que st i o n. F i na l l y, i n de te r m i ni ngthe a dequa cy o f th e r emedy, the j ury w as not obl i ged to i gn or e th e pl ai nti ff’ s a ccount of the e ffect that the Unive rs i ty’ s a l l ege d fa i l ure to32 N o. 10

- 3862

re spond adequatel y had o n hi s fu tu re atthe U ni ver si ty. A ccor ding to the pla i nti ff’ s tes ti m ony, w hi ch w e m u st accept as tr u e as l ong as the c ase i s in sum m ar y j ud gm ent pos ture , the pros pect o fencou nter i ng the al l ege d p erp etrator in the bu il d ing w as a p rim e cau se in h is sh ift of f ocus fro m a pre- m edi cal concent ra ti on to an othe r di scip l i ne . The j ur y mightwel lde te r m i ne tha t th e student worke r’ s acco unt ofthe effect ofthi s no n-e nfo rce m en t o n h i s ac ade m i c wel l

-be i ng was no t as s i g ni fi ca nt as he s ta te s an d tha t i nt er ve ni ngf actor s wer e th e true cause i n the a l t e r a t i o n i n hi s wo r ka nd a c a de mi c p l a ns . On the o th erha nd, the j ur y mightde ter m i ne tha t th e pla i ntiff’ s s eco nd

- sem est erdeci si on- m aking was i nd eed c au se d by th e a lleg ed h ar as s m e n t a n d alleg ed leth ar gic i mpl e men t a t i o n o fa r e med y . T he j ur y mi g htc o ncl ud e th at, g i ve n the p lai nt i ff’ s ag e, e duca ti o n, e xpe r i en ce a nd hi s s t ud e ntwo r k e rs t a t us , the r e s po ns e o fthe Uni v e r s i ty w as i nd eed neg l i gent. It is u n d isp u te d th at t h e U n ive rs ity ac te d ; in d ee d , in s o meem plo ym ent s i tuati ons, i ts a c ti on m ay have been ad eq u at e. It is q u es tio n ab le, h ow ev er , w h et h er , in M r. M i l l i gan’ s par ti cul arsi tuati on, the U ni ver si ty’ s a cti o n was a r ea so nabl e o ne . In a ss es singthi s que st i o n, the j ury coul d consi der the surro und i ng ci rcum sta nces to deter m i ne wh etherthe re m edy was i nadeq u ate or w h et h er its im p l e m en ta tio n w as h alf-h ea rt ed . Th e c old re cor d on sum m ar y j ud gm ent y i el ds no defi ni ti ve an sw er t o t h i s q u es tio n, bu t a rea so n ab le jur or co u ld co ns true the f ac ts in s uc h a waya s to r ea cha c o nc l usi o n s uppo r ti ve o fthe pl aint i ff’ s po si ti o n.N o. 10

- 3862 33 The m aj or i ty fear s that th is a nal ysi s “ thre ate n[s ] to carve a high er stan d ard of p rotection f or stud en t w orkers tha n f o ro the rpl ai nti ff s , ” a r e s ul ttha ti s u nwa r r a nt e d, am ong othe r re aso ns, bec ause student worke rs ar e no t so unu suali n ter m s o fthe pow eri m bal ance that they fa c e w i t h th eir em p loy er s. M ajorit y O p . at 1 8. I ce rt ain ly ag r ee tha t ani m ba l an ce o fpo weri s atthe hea r t o f“ [ m ] an y i fnotm osthar ass m ent c ases.” Id. T he situation of a stude ntwor k eri s un ique no t so l ely b ec au se o fthe s tu
dent’s char acte ri sti c vul nerabi l i ty; i t i s uni que beca use i t i s a parto fa l ar ger, speci alr el ati onshi p between an in st itu tio n of h igh er lea rn in g a n d an ind ivid u al. In that re l ati onshi p, the i nsti tuti on i s e ntrust ed w i th r espo ns ibi l i ti es f o rc ar e o fthe s tu den t di ffer en t from , a nd f a ri n e xc e s s o f, wh a ta n em plo yer i s e xp e c t e d t o p r o v i de for an em p loy ee . Se es upra pp . 27- 28. M or e im port antl y, how ever, m y approach i s har dlya new o r ra dica l statem ent o fthe sta nd ar d to be a pp l i ed and certa in ly re cogni zes no new cat ego ryo fpro tect i on f orstud ents orany othe r gr oup i n the abst ra ct. Curre nt l aw unequiv oc a l l y i n s t r u c t s th a tw e a c c o u n tf o rth e p a r t i c u l a rc i r c u mst an c es of an ind ivid u al e m p loy m en t r ela tio n sh ip in ass ess i ng th e re aso nabl eness o fan e m plo yer ’ s r esponse . I t i s a si gni fi cant m i schar acte ri zati on o fm y pos itio n to sugge st that Ipro pose som e s or t o fh eight ened st an d ar d of p ro te c tio n for s tu d en t w or ke rs . Isim p ly sugge st that M r. M i l l i gan’ s s tudent -w orkerst atus m ust be incl ud ed am on g the t ota l i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces a j ury w oul d consideri n the prese nt cas e. The co nsi derations Ihav e out line d above sim p ly high li gh t the pa rti cul arf ac ts o fthi s ca se whi ch m ightco n vin c e a j u ry , in34 N o. 10

- 3862 applying cur re nt l aw , to co ncl ud e that S I U fa il ed to m eet i ts o bl i g at i o ns wi thr es pec t to M r . M i l l i g an . Because the r eco rd i s no t fre e o fm ate ri alf actual i ssues r ega rdi ng the adequacy ofthe U ni ver si ty’ s r esponse, Iwould rev erse the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t a nd r em and the ca se f ortri al

. A ccor dingl y, I re spectfully di sse nt.

7- 10- 12