Debra Matlock, a Black woman born in 1952, began working for the University of Illinois in 2014 as Director of the Purchasing and Contract Management Department. She later attained the title of Executive Director. Matlock alleged that she was the only minority director at the University and was subjected to repeated incidents of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on account of her race, gender, and age. She cited three major episodes of mistreatment over a seven-year period. The first episode occurred between 2018 and 2020, when she led a negotiation for a new electronic procurement system. Although the negotiation succeeded, Matlock alleged that colleagues undermined her efforts and that her assertiveness was mischaracterized as bullying. Following the deal’s completion, she claimed she was excluded from communications, stripped of authority to execute the contract, and criticized by supervisors for being “too sensitive,” “aggressive,” and needing to display “more empathy and less ego.” She alleged that such characterizations had a racial and gendered undertone.
The second episode related to a promotion and raise she was promised in January 2020. Although her supervisor informed her she would be promoted to Executive Director and receive a salary increase, the promotion was not submitted to the Board of Trustees in time. Her title was updated a year later, but she never received the corresponding raise, allegedly due to budget constraints. Meanwhile, according to Matlock, less-experienced, non-Black employees were promoted and given raises without delay or similar administrative issues.
The third episode took place in 2022 and involved alleged age discrimination. A younger white male subordinate had received an outside job offer and told university officials he would stay only if guaranteed Matlock’s position. Following this, Matlock was pressured by her supervisors to provide a retirement date. She described a series of conversations in which she was asked to outline a retirement timeline and develop a separation plan. The younger employee reportedly told her she was “at the end” of her career, reinforcing the perception that age was the motivating factor behind the pressure campaign.
Matlock allegedly filed internal complaints with the University in June 2021, August 2021, and March 2022, and also alleged that her legal counsel raised concerns directly with the University. She filed a complaint with the EEOC in June 2023 and received a right-to-sue letter in October. Matlock sued alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race, gender, and age in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
In response, the University filed a motion to dismiss several of the claims, arguing that the hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the ADEA were untimely; that none of the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to sustain a hostile work environment; and that for the retaliation claims, no materially adverse action occurred after Matlock’s complaints of discrimination.
The Court first addressed the timeliness argument. Because Matlock filed her EEOC charge in June 2023, any discriminatory acts under Title VII or the ADEA occurring before August 18, 2022, were presumptively time-barred under the applicable 300-day window. Matlock attempted to invoke the “continuing violation” doctrine, arguing that the various incidents represented one continuous hostile work environment. The Court rejected this theory, finding a multi-year gap between episodes and a substantive disconnect between the types of discrimination alleged. The early conduct (from 2018 to 2020) focused on racial and gender hostility, while the 2022 conduct involved alleged age discrimination. The Court held that the absence of continuous conduct or similar actors during the intervening years meant that the pre-2022 events could not support her hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the ADEA.
Turning to the hostile work environment claims, the Court examined whether Matlock’s allegations, even if timely, were sufficient to establish that the conduct was “severe or pervasive” enough to constitute a hostile environment. The Court held that the Title VII claim based on race and gender must be dismissed because all supporting conduct was time-barred and the only timely incident—the pressure to retire—was unrelated to race or gender.
However, the Court allowed the Section 1981 race-based hostile work environment claim to proceed. Section 1981 claims are not subject to EEOC filing deadlines, so the Court considered the full timeline of events. Although the Court noted that Matlock may not ultimately prove her work environment was hostile, her allegations about repeated exclusion and racially coded criticism were sufficient at the pleading stage. Similarly, the Court declined to dismiss the age-based hostile work environment claim under the ADEA, finding that the repeated retirement pressure and derogatory comments from a younger subordinate could plausibly support a claim of age-based harassment.
On the retaliation claims, the Court noted that to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must allege protected activity and a materially adverse employment action as a result of that activity. Matlock’s internal complaints from 2021 and 2022 qualified as protected activity, and although many of the allegedly retaliatory actions occurred before those complaints, the University’s failure to follow through with her promised raise occurred afterward. The Court emphasized that denial of a raise—especially one that was promised—can constitute an adverse action sufficient to support a retaliation claim. Accordingly, the Court denied the University’s motion to dismiss on all three retaliation counts.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed only Matlock’s Title VII hostile work environment claim but granted her leave to amend if she could allege additional timely conduct related to race or gender. The Court allowed the remaining hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Section 1981 and the ADEA to move forward.
Matlock v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (N.D.Ill. May 9, 2025) 2025 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 88897.
Note: This case serves as an important reminder that gender coded comments, targeted pressure to retire, and the denial of expected compensation can all form the basis of viable claims under anti-discrimination statutes.