Fenwick High School, Oak Park, Illinois
CHICAGO — A federal judge said a former Fenwick teacher can’t continue his lawsuit alleging the suburban Catholic school sabotaged his career by telling his new employer he was named in unsubstantiated sexual conduct rumors.
Richard Schlesinger, whom court documents identify as openly gay, said a Fenwick supervisor made disparaging comments about his sexual orientation, but neither administrators nor human resources addressed his complaints. He then alleged the school contacted his new employer, a public high school, and recommended he be fired based on engaging in sexual misconduct while at Fenwick. Schlesinger resigned from that job and then filed a civil rights complaint.
On March 10, U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama largely granted Fenwick’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Schlesinger started working at Fenwick High School in suburban Oak Park in December 2022 and said the disparaging comments from his direct supervisor began around the start of the next school year, leading to his formal complaints about six months later. In April 2024 he accepted his new job, during which Fenwick completed a state board of education questionnaire indicating, in part, he had no allegations of sexual misconduct.
The “disparaging comments intensified” after Schlesinger accepted the job, Valderrama wrote, after which Fenwick HR “agreed the comments directed at him were harassing and discriminatory,” but took no action. Schlesinger said he learned in May 2024 there were rumors he had committed misconduct and reported immediately to HR that “the rumor was false and unsubstantiated. Fenwick agreed but took no action.”
Schlesinger said Fenwick administration changed around the same time he started his new job and said the false report made its way to his new school in mid-September 2024. He claimed the new administration did not contact him before communicating with his new school. On Oct. 10, the new school told Schlesinger administration would recommend the board fire him. He resigned about a week later.
In arguing for dismissal, Fenwick said it isn’t responsible for another school’s employment decisions and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t recognize Schlesinger’s “interference theory” — contending the act of sending the report is its own adverse employment action because it was not the mere transmission of neutral information, but a false report that cost him his job.
“The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a Title VII claim ordinarily requires the existence of an employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the challenged adverse action,” Valderrama wrote, noting no such relationship is present given the timeline. Further, he wrote, “It is undisputed that the Seventh Circuit has not adopted the ‘interference theory’ under Title VII.”
Schlesinger also sought to sue Fenwick on allegations of a hostile work environment, based on his orientation, while the school employed him. Fenwick challenged the facts of the complaint and “maintains that general hostility and comments are not actionable unless they are sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment,” Valderrama wrote.
Although a complaint can survive dismissal so long as it has enough information to identify a grievance and allow investigation, Valderrama said “the factual allegations here are too thin to plausibly suggest severe or pervasive harassment. The problem is not that Schlesinger has failed to quote every remark or identify every date. The problem is that the complaint alleges only unspecified ‘disparaging comments’ of unknown content, unknown severity and unknown frequency.”
Regarding the misconduct rumor, Valderrama noted Schlesinger said only another teacher informed him of the matter. There is no allegation a school employee or supervisor started the rumor and none of Schlesinger’s filings claim a source. Valderrama similarly agreed with Fenwick on Schlesinger’s retaliation claims, saying although “post-employment retaliation can be actionable in appropriate circumstances,” his complaint still lacks “plausible allegations that Fenwick exercised control over” Schlesinger’s new employer or otherwise caused it to threaten to recommend the board fire him.
Valderrama similarly dismissed Schlesinger’s Title VII claim the cause of Fenwick’s action was his protected status, reiterating: “The workplace allegations are too thinly pleaded to support a plausible inference that Fenwick took materially adverse retaliatory action after Schlesinger complained, and the later disclosure theory falters because the complaint does not plausibly attribute Schlesinger’s later employment consequence to Fenwick.”
With the federal claims dismissed, Valderrama also said he wouldn’t exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims, so he dismissed those and will allow Schlesinger to refile in state court. Schlesinger will be allowed to amend his complaint until March 24, the judge said.
Schlesinger has been represented by attorney T. Andrew Horvat, of the firm of Horvat Law, of Chicago.
Fenwick is represented by attorney Connor P. Singleton, of the firm of Engler Callaway Baasten & Sraga, of Oak Brook.
