I hope everyone had a fun Halloween last night.

And before Halloween gets too far into the distant past, check out this scary HR story:

A full-time adjunct instructor at the University of Illinois-Springfield (we’ll call her “Jackie”) made six – count ‘em, six – internal complaints that her boss, who was an Arab Muslim, was being discriminated against because of his religion and his ethnic background. Jackie's complaints were made between April 2015 and April 2016. Those dates will be important in a minute.

As an adjunct, Jackie was employed through annual contracts. In 2014 and 2015 – before she made the complaints – her contracts were for 12 months each. But in 2016 – after she had made some complaints, and only two days after one of her complaints – she was offered a nine-month contract, which she begrudgingly accepted.

Then, while the nine-month contract was still in effect, she was told that her contract would not be renewed in the future. In other words, she lost her job.

Not surprisingly, Jackie sued the University for retaliation under Title VII based on her complaints of ethnic and religious discrimination.

Surprisingly, a federal court granted summary judgment to the University, dismissing Jackie’s case without a trial, and this week a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Even more surprisingly, the courts (and the University) were correct, in my opinion. This case should be an inspiration to any employer who feels paralyzed and powerless after an employee engages in some type of legally protected activity. And isn't that all employers?

The timing was atrocious – first, the nine-month contract offered after many of the complaints were made, followed by the non-renewal after all of the complaints were made. And the University admitted that it made at least one other "significant" mistake, discussed below.

Here are four reasons why it won anyway.

No. 1: The University could prove that it wasn’t out to get Jackie. Here’s the rest of the story that I left out before. In January 2016, two different adjuncts complained to Human Resources that the same Arab-Muslim boss left them off the schedule for Spring 2016 even though they had previously taught four courses during each academic term. They alleged that the boss was retaliating against them because they had complained about his “management of the program and perceived favoritism for Saudi students.” The University began an investigation of these allegations, initially focused on whether the boss had engaged in retaliatory behavior. 

No. 2: The University conducted a thorough investigation and followed the leads where they led. As part of the investigation into the alleged retaliation by the boss, the University Ethics Office interviewed Jackie. During her interview, Jackie volunteered that she had recommended to the boss that these other adjuncts be removed from the schedule because of their complaints about the boss. Even though Jackie didn’t have the authority to remove them from the schedule herself, she made the recommendation, and her boss adopted her recommendation. (She said that her recommendation was also based on the adjuncts’ allegedly inadequate performance, but the prior complaints were definitely a factor.)

Based on this unexpected story, the University put Jackie on administrative leave and began investigating whether Jackie had retaliated against the other adjuncts. Jackie was interviewed again and alleged that the process was unfair. (See No. 4, below.)

At the end of the investigation, the Ethics Office found that Jackie had in fact retaliated against the two adjuncts plus a third, and recommended that Jackie be non-renewed for this reason. Although she did not have formal power over her peers, the Ethics Office found that she had “significant informal power.” The Office found that the boss “relie[d] heavily” on Jackie’s recommendations, “including who will teach each term.” The Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education accepted the findings and recommendations, and told Jackie that her contract would not be renewed.

No. 3: The University had excellent documentation. Remember that thorough investigation that I just talked about? (In case you have a short memory, see No. 2.) That was all written up in a nice memo from the Ethics Office to the Associate Vice Chancellor. In other words, the investigation, the findings, the recommendations, and the rationale were all documented, and the University was able to present that to the court after Jackie sued for retaliation based on her own complaints. Although the appeals court decision didn’t quote the memo at length, it sounds like it covered all of the points that could have resulted in legal problems for the University – most notably, the basis for its finding that Jackie, a non-supervisory adjunct instructor, had enough clout to have retaliated against three of her peers.

No. 4: The University didn’t violate its own policies. If an employer violates its own policies, this can be fatal to its defense in a discrimination or retaliation case. The University admitted that the Ethics Office made a “significant” mistake by not providing Jackie with a copy of an internal report about the investigation before asking her to respond to the allegations. But there was no policy actually requiring the University to provide the report, so the courts did not think that weighed against the University.

(One caution – even though this "significant" mistake didn’t defeat the University’s defense, employers should determine not only whether there is a written policy requiring that certain protocols be followed, but also whether there is a consistent practice. If you deviate from a consistent past practice, that can be evidence that you had an unlawful motive. If you have good reason to deviate from your past practice, be sure you document the rationale.)

(BONUS) No. 5: Even if the University was wrong and the other adjuncts were lying, the University still would have won. Jackie claimed that the other adjuncts lied about her, but that didn't save her case. To prevail, she had to present evidence that the Ethics Office knew or believed that the other adjuncts were lying and took action against Jackie anyway, or evidence that members of the Ethics Office were upset about Jackie’s complaints of discrimination against her boss. According to the appeals court, she did neither. Assuming for the sake of argument that the other adjuncts did lie about Jackie, as long as the University acted on a good-faith belief that their complaints about her were true, then the University is not liable for retaliation – even if it was mistaken. (For more on the “good-faith mistaken belief” defense, you may want to read my post from last week.)

In short, the courts found that Jackie had engaged in legally protected activity, and that she was subjected to adverse action. But they found that her case broke down over whether the protected activity caused the adverse action. So even though the University’s actions were not perfect, they were good enough to justify dismissal of the case. Go, Prairie Stars!