Vaun Monroe v. Columbia College Chicago, et al.

Did the court of appeals err in requiring Petitioner Vaun Monroe (“Monroe”) to show, on a motion to dismiss, that equitable estoppel can only arise when a defendant is shown to have engaged in a “deliberate design” to mislead him, which ruling is in tension with the standard for equitable estoppel employed in the majority of the other Circuit Courts of appeals as well as the Circuit Courts inter se?

Did the court of appeals err in giving no deference or weight to the EEOC’s assumption of jurisdiction on Monroe’s charge filing, and subsequent investigation of the charge for three years resulting in the issuance of a “right to sue” letter, as reflecting a timely assertion of his claims with that agency? The questions presented arise in the following context: Monroe is an award-winning director and film maker, who teaches directing, screenwriting and film studies. He was the first and only Black male hired as a tenure-track professor in the Film and Video Department of Columbia College Chicago. (“Columbia”). He was denied tenure by the Columbia in 2013. Pursuant to Columbia’s “up or out” tenure system, if tenure is denied, the faculty member is afforded a final or “terminal” year of employment before the employment relationship ends. While employed in his “terminal year”, Monroe filed a complaint of discrimination with the City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, alleging racial