NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 21, 2018* Decided November 21, 2018 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge No. 18-2101 HYE-YOUNG PARK, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois v. No. 2:18-cv-02090-CSB-EIL BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Colin S. Bruce, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, et al., Judge. Defendants-Appellees. ORDER Hye-Young “Lisa” Park, a former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, complained to school officials that two men sexually harassed her. She sued the Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois, among others, for race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and the denial of due process. The district court * The defendants have not been served with process and are not participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 18-2101 Page 2 dismissed her complaint on res judicata grounds because she had raised identical or nearly identical claims in a prior suit. We affirm on alternative grounds. Park first brought a federal suit in June 2015 against the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and two officials in the university’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access (ODEA) who had investigated her accusations that two men sexually harassed her. Park asserted that the Board of Trustees discriminated against her based on her sex, see Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, when university officials wrote a report stating that they could not help her and then did nothing; endorsed officials who retaliated against her based on her sex and race when they encouraged a professor to stop sponsoring Park for immigration purposes, see id.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and denied her due process by promoting policies under which officials could refuse to take action after someone complained about harassment, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As for the two ODEA officials, Park asserted a similar § 1981 claim of retaliation for their role in encouraging the professor to end her immigration sponsorship, and a similar due-process claim for their role in writing the report in which they said they had no power to stop the harassment and for their decision to take no action. The district court ruled against her. On the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court initially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss her § 1983 and § 1981 claims against the Board and her § 1981 retaliation claim against the ODEA officials. Later, in January 2018, the court entered summary judgment on the remaining claims against these defendants: the court found no evidence, first, that any defendant denied Park due process or discriminated against her after she notified the officials of harassment (because ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals