Richard Schlesinger, an openly gay teacher, filed suit against Fenwick High School, a private Catholic school, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, along with several state law claims. Schlesinger was hired in December 2022 and alleged that beginning in August 2023, his direct supervisor made disparaging comments about his sexual orientation. He reported the conduct to school administrators in early 2024 and later escalated his concerns to human resources. Although human resources allegedly acknowledged that the conduct was inappropriate, Schlesinger claimed the School failed to investigate or take corrective action, and that the comments intensified after his complaints.
In April 2024, Schlesinger accepted a position with a local public high school and began preparing to transition employment. At that time, Fenwick completed a required disclosure form indicating that there were no allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Shortly thereafter, Schlesinger became aware of rumors circulating about alleged misconduct attributed to him, which he reported to human resources. According to Schlesinger, the School determined the rumors were unsubstantiated but again took no action to address them. He left Fenwick at the end of the school year and began his new position in August 2024.
Schlesinger alleged that following a change in Fenwick’s administration, the School revisited his prior complaints and the previously dismissed allegations. In September 2024, Fenwick informed his new employer that Schlesinger had engaged in sexual misconduct, without first notifying him or providing an opportunity to respond. Schlesinger claimed this disclosure led his new employer to recommend his termination, prompting his resignation shortly thereafter. He alleged that both his sexual orientation and his prior complaints of discrimination were motivating factors in Fenwick’s actions.
Schlesinger brought claims for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. To state a discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege that the employer took a materially adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic. The Court found that Schlesinger failed to plausibly allege such an action attributable to Fenwick. Although Schlesinger pointed to his resignation from his new employer, the Court emphasized that Title VII liability generally requires an employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the alleged adverse action. Because Fenwick no longer employed Schlesinger and did not control the decision-making of his new employer, the Court concluded that the alleged harm could not be attributed to Fenwick. The Court also declined to adopt an “interference theory” of liability, under which a former employer could be held liable for negatively affecting a plaintiff’s employment with a third party, noting that such a theory has not been recognized in the Seventh Circuit and would in any event require a showing of control over the employment relationship.
The Court also rejected Schlesinger’s alternative theory that he experienced a hostile work environment while employed at Fenwick. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. The Court found that Schlesinger’s allegations were too vague to meet this standard. He did not describe the content, frequency, or severity of the alleged comments, and the complaint did not plausibly connect the alleged rumors to any actionable conduct by Fenwick. Without specific factual allegations, the Court concluded that Schlesinger failed to plausibly allege conduct rising to the level required under Title VII.
The Court reached the same conclusion on Schlesinger’s retaliation claim. Although he alleged that he engaged in protected activity by reporting discrimination, the Court found that he failed to plausibly allege a materially adverse action caused by Fenwick. The alleged workplace conduct was too vaguely pleaded to support an inference of retaliation, and the later disclosure to his new employer could not be attributed to Fenwick for the same reasons discussed in the discrimination claim. The Court also noted that the several-month gap between Schlesinger’s complaints and the alleged disclosure further undermined any inference of causation.
The Court dismissed both the discrimination and retaliation claims.
Schlesinger v. Fenwick High Sch. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2026) 2026 WL 673485.
Note: This case highlights considerations for private schools when responding to requests for information about former employees, particularly where disclosures may impact future employment. In California, the newly enacted SB 848 requires private schools to provide certain information regarding employee misconduct. Schools should ensure that any such disclosures are accurate, supported by appropriate investigation, and consistent with statutory requirements.