During the past academic year, the Employment Law Clinic has continued its work helping pro se plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases in federal court. This work includes representing pro se plaintiffs as their Settlement Assistance Counsel in individual discrimination cases and representing pro se plaintiffs in their appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, the Employment Law Clinic has expanded its work with pro se plaintiffs by participating in the William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program. This program allows students in the Employment Law Clinic to provide pro se plaintiffs with advice about procedural issues in their cases pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Some of the significant developments in a few of the Clinic’s cases are detailed below.

Settlement Assistance Cases

Clinical Professor Randall D. Schmidt and his students are appointed on a regular basis to provide representation to pro se plaintiffs at settlement conferences. Since starting this project in early 2021, Professor Schmidt has been appointed as Settlement Assistance Counsel for pro se plaintiffs in forty employment discrimination cases. Although most of these cases were pending in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, he has also been appointed in cases pending in the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois and in the Central District of Illinois.

These cases allow students to interview the client, research the legal and factual issues in the case, draft a settlement demand letter, represent the client at a settlement conference, and, if the case settles, draft the settlement agreement.

Professor Schmidt and his students have been very successful in resolving these cases. Of the forty cases Professor Schmidt and his students have handled, twenty-nine were settled after one or more mediation sessions. Three are still pending and awaiting the initial or follow-up settlement conference. Seven cases did not settle. Of those, two settled after Professor Schmidt’s appointment ended, two are still pending, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant in the other four cases.

This year, the total amount of the settlements in these cases surpassed $1,000,000. Moreover, the average settlement is greater than the average settlement obtained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its cases (which was $33,536 according to its 2024 Annual Performance Report).

2026 Award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service

The work of Professor Schmidt and his students in representing pro se plaintiffs has also been recognized by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. This year, Professor Schmidt and his students received, for the third time since starting this work, the NDIL and FBA’s 2026 Award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service. (In addition, Professor Schmidt and his students received the NDIL and FBA’s 2015 Award for Excellence in Public Interest Service for their work on behalf of low-income workers in several employment discrimination class actions.)

Professor Schmidt and his students received this award for their work on behalf of O’Neal Johnson in Johnson v. Habitat Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-2433 (NDIL). Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim, who presided over the settlement proceedings, nominated Professor Schmidt for the award. In nominating Professor Schmidt for the award, Judge Kim stated:

I am honored to nominate Professor Schmidt for his exceptional pro bono service in O'Neal Johnson v. Habitat Company. Professor Schmidt took on this representation entirely of his own volition through the settlement assistance program, demonstrating a profound commitment to access to justice. He has done so in several of my cases in the past with great success. This was an inherently challenging employment discrimination case, as the plaintiff held deeply rooted convictions regarding liability and damages that were not always supported by the available evidence. This matter reached a successful resolution only because of Professor Schmidt's extraordinary patience, professional tenacity, and his ability to bridge the gap between his client's expectations and the realities of the law.

Below are a few other examples of cases that Professor Schmidt and his students handled during the 2025-26 academic year. Each of these cases resulted in a settlement after one or more mediation sessions. Pursuant to the settlement agreements in these lawsuits, the details of the settlements are confidential.

Amiel Bunkley v. Grubhub, Case No. 1:24-cv-06150 (NDIL)

Amiel Bunkley filed a pro se complaint against his employer Grubhub. In his complaint, he alleged that he experienced unlawful race- and sex-based discrimination and harassment. He listed numerous incidents of discriminatory conduct by Grubhub’s managers. Combined, these incidents were sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter Mr. Bunkley’s work environment and thereby create a hostile work environment.

More specifically, Mr. Bunkley alleged that he was denied career advancement opportunities based on his race and sex. Mr. Bunkley asserted that he was denied various promotions, while similarly situated female and non-Black employees were granted such positions. Another example of this discriminatory treatment was that Mr. Bunkley was denied several bonuses despite meeting the metrics Grubhub had set.

Mr. Bunkley complained to his supervisors that he was experiencing discrimination and harassment on the basis of his race and sex. After Mr. Bunkley’s complaint, his discrimination and harassment intensified. For example, after his complaint, Mr. Bunkley’s schedule was altered despite Mr. Bunkley needing to have his schedule accommodate his child’s visitation. When Mr. Bunkley reached out to management about his schedule being changed, his questions were ignored, and he was told Mr. Vasquez was out of the office. Furthermore, after his complaint, Mr. Bunkley was unfairly denied pay raises and bonuses. Finally, Mr. Bunkley was demoted and forced to do work on other less desirable projects.

Ultimately, Mr. Bunkley’s employment with Grubhub was terminated.

The matter was in the early stages of discovery when Professor Schmidt was appointed to represent Mr. Bunkley. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez conducted a settlement conference. At that conference, the parties were able to reach a settlement, and the case was dismissed.

Busanelli v. SBSB Eastham, Case No. 1:25-cv-02606 (NDIL)

Christine Busanelli is an Illinois-licensed attorney. She was contacted by a recruiter for Defendant, SBSBE, a law firm operating in various states, including Illinois. Ms. Busanelli attended an in-person interview with one of SBSB’s partners and an associate. During the interview, the partner became immediately hostile to Ms. Busanelli based upon her age, making comments such as “she would not be happy at the firm because she is so old,” that she was “too old” to work there, that she would not “fit in,” and he inquired what generation she was from. After the interview, Ms. Busanelli received an email rejecting her. She then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.

In response to the Charge, SBSB changed course and offered Ms. Busanelli a position at the firm. However, once she started work, the firm made her work life awful, including by excluding her from social events, subjecting her to heightened scrutiny, assigning her the worst support staff, excessively surveilling her, ridiculing her age in front of colleagues, denying better work assignments, and denying her monthly parking benefits given to younger firm employees.

The firm ultimately fired Ms. Busanelli.

Ms. Busanelli, through counsel, filed a complaint in the NDIL. In the complaint, Ms. Busanelli claimed that SBSB committed age discrimination in its initial interview with her, its initial rejection of her application, in its treatment of her after it hired her, and in its decision to terminate her.

After engaging in some discovery, the parties reached a tentative settlement in the matter. However, before the settlement could be finalized, Ms. Busanelli’s attorney was allowed to withdraw from representing her. At that point, the court appointed Professor Schmidt to help Ms. Busanelli resolve several terms of the settlement.

After several off-the-record discussions with Magistrate Judge Daniel P. McLaughlin, the outstanding terms were resolved and the matter was settled.

Campbell v. Liberty Mutual Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-05101 (NDIL)

Professor Schmidt was initially appointed in early 2024 to represent Summer Campbell in settlement discussions with her former employer Liberty Mutual. Ms. Campbell sued Liberty Mutual for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Campbell alleged that she is a woman with a mental disability. She was hired by Liberty Mutual as a technical assistant in payments. Ms. Campbell advised her employer of her disabilities and sought accommodation. Ten months after being hired, Ms. Campbell was promoted to associate account analyst after having applied and qualified for the position. Despite Ms. Campbell’s contributions and service to Liberty Mutual, the company engaged in unlawful discrimination and retaliation based on her mental disabilities. The company’s unlawful conduct directly led to Ms. Campbell’s constructive discharge.

After Professor Schmidt was appointed, the parties spent almost a year trying to resolve the matter. These efforts included a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman and many off-the-record conferences with Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz. Ultimately, the parties could not agree to the terms of a settlement and Professor Schmidt was relieved of the appointment in early 2025. The parties then engaged in discovery.

In late 2025, Judge Weisman again appointed Professor Schmidt to serve as Ms. Campbell’s Settlement Assistance Counsel. With his assistance, the parties were able to resolve their differences and agree to a settlement. The matter was then dismissed.

Jones v. Advocate Aurora Health, Case No. 1:23-cv-15814 (NDIL)

Oshane Jones filed a pro se complaint alleging that his former employer Advocate Aurora Health wrongfully terminated him due to his religion. Advocate required all employees to take a flu vaccine annually and certify by a date certain that they had taken the vaccine. Mr. Jones, a courier for Advocate, sought a religious exemption, which he claimed Advocate wrongfully denied.

The case was at an early stage when Professor Schmidt was appointed. Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain conducted an in-person settlement conference. At that conference, the parties were able to reach a settlement.

Sanchez v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, Case No. 1:23-cv-05791 (NDIL)

Jemima Sanchez began working for the Illinois Department of Employment Security in 2011. In 2019, Ms. Sanchez notified IDES of her disability and asked to use intermittent FMLA. That request was approved for two years. In 2020, Plaintiff asked for the accommodation of a standing desk and further FMLA usage, which were denied.

Ms. Sanchez filed a pro se complaint against IDES alleging violations of the ADA and FMLA. In her complaint, Ms. Sanchez claimed that after her 2020 requests for an accommodation and additional FMLA usage, she was treated differently than non-disabled employees, denied overtime, retraining and promotion opportunities, written up for absenteeism, and generally retaliated against by IDES due to her disability and use of FMLA.

Magistrate Judge Laura K. McNulty conducted several settlement conferences. At the end of those discussions, the parties were able to reach a settlement and the case was dismissed.

Valentine v. FedEx, Case No. 1:25-cv-05190 (NDIL)

Audrey Valentine filed a pro se complaint against her former employer, FedEx Express. In the complaint, she stated that FedEx constructively discharged her from her job as a handler. Ms. Valentine further asserted that she was denied promotions, ostracized, treated unfairly, and harassed. When she reported her manager to HR, FedEx initiated a campaign of retaliation that included turning her coworkers against her and spreading malicious falsehoods about her in an effort to force her to resign.

The case was in discovery when Professor Schmidt was appointed. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert conducted an in-person settlement conference. At that conference, the parties were able to reach a settlement and the case was dismissed.

Watkins v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, Case No. 1:25-cv-05 (NDIL)

Mr. Siobhan K. Watkins worked for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. During her time with the Clerk’s Office, she experienced discrimination due to her sex and a hostile work environment that included bullying. Ms. Watkins reported the discrimination to the Office of Inspector General for the Clerk’s Office, which conducted an investigation. After this complaint, Ms. Watkins experienced intensified scrutiny and was terminated.

In her pro se complaint, Ms. Watkins alleged that the Clerk’s Office discriminated against her because of her sex, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her for complaining about the treatment.

Discovery was just beginning in the case when the Court appointed Professor Schmidt to serve as Settlement Assistance Counsel for Ms. Watkins. Magistrate Judge Keri L. Holleb Hotaling conducted an in-person settlement conference. At that conference, the parties were able to reach a settlement and the case was dismissed.

Appellate Cases

The Employment Law Clinic represents clients in a number of appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In some of these appeals, the Employment Law Clinic represents the appellants in their appeals. In other appeals, the Clinic is contacted and asked to participate as amicus curiae. Students working on these appeals write the briefs and present oral argument to the Seventh Circuit. Both Professor Schmidt and Lecturer-in-Law James Whitehead supervise the students in the appeals pending in the Seventh Circuit.

This past year, the Employment Law Clinic began tracking appeals of employment discrimination matters in the Seventh Circuit. As a result of this effort, the Clinic identified a number of appeals that, in the opinion of the students working in the Clinic, warranted the Clinic filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the appellant. Thus, the Clinic has filed amicus briefs in four of those cases. All of those appeals are still being briefed.

In addition, two appeals that the Clinic is involved in were resolved in 2025-26. They are listed below.

Ballard v. Ameren Illinois, Appeal No. 25-1562 (7th Cir.)

Kimberly Ballard was hired by Ameren Illinois on August 12, 2013, as an energy efficiency advisor. On February 9, 2015, while attending a work-related conference, she fell and injured her wrist. In February and July 2015, she underwent surgeries to address the injury, but it never fully healed. Thereafter, Ameren repeatedly discriminated against Ms. Ballard because of her physical disability.

Ms. Ballard reported her harassment to Ameren’s management, but the discrimination continued. In retaliation for raising her concerns, she was given negative performance reviews and was criticized by her supervisors. The discrimination against Ms. Ballard culminated in her discharge from Ameren’s employment on February 26, 2018.

On August 24, 2018, Ms. Ballard timely submitted a Complainant Information Sheet (“CIS”) to the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) in which she alleged discrimination and retaliation that she had suffered at Ameren because of her physical disability. In her CIS, she requested the IDHR to investigate her allegations and to cross-file her claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and authorized the EEOC to “look into the discrimination alleged [in her CIS].”

On May 14, 2024, Ms. Ballard filed a complaint against Ameren in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging that she had been discriminated and retaliated against by Ameren because of her disability in violation of the ADA. On July 29, 2024, Ameren filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Ballard’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing inter alia that she had failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies because she had filed her charge with the EEOC more than 300 days after the date on which she had been discharged by the company.

On January 7, 2025, the district court issued its Order and Opinion dismissing Ms. Ballard’s complaint with prejudice. The court agreed with Ameren that Ms. Ballard’s CIS had not qualified as a charge for the purposes of the ADA, relying solely on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Carlson v. Christian Bros. Servs., 840 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2016), in which the Seventh Circuit had ruled that a filing like the IDHR’s CIS does not function as a charge unless it seeks relief. The court ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), in which the Supreme Court ruled that an informal pre-charge document filed with the EEOC qualifies as a “charge” for purposes of the limitations periods in federal antidiscrimination statutes if the document (1) alleges discrimination, (2) names the charged party, and (3) requests the agency to take remedial action. The court also rejected Ms. Ballard’s argument that the 300-day deadline should be equitably tolled because of the misleading statements made by the IDHR.

At Ms. Ballard’s request, the Employment Law Clinic agreed to represent her in her appeal of the dismissal of her complaint. In the appeal, the Clinic argued that Carlson misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Holowecki and is inconsistent with decisions issued by other circuit courts and dozens of district courts that have concluded that informal filings that contain the same language as the CIS qualify as charges. The Clinic also argued that, assuming Carlson was correctly decided, the district court erred in failing to apply equitable tolling to the charge-filing period.

The matter was orally argued in February 2026 by one of the third-year law students in the Employment Law Clinic. On April 28, 2026, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion vacating the judgment of the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings. Although the court rejected the Clinic’s argument that Carlson was incorrectly decided, it agreed that the district court erred in rejecting Ms. Ballard’s claim that the district court should equitably toll Ms. Ballard’s charge-filing period.

Bauman v. Lilly USA, LLC, Appeal No. 25-2355 (7th Cir.)

Andrew Bauman was a Senior Account Manager at Lilly when he was given the option to either switch his role to one that was non-customer-facing or accept a severance package and his termination. He was given this ultimatum in September 2021, in response to Mr. Bauman’s request for a religious exemption to Lilly’s internal mask mandate. Two months later, Mr. Bauman began a position with a lower internal ranking, less pay, and a lower maximum bonus than the position he was made to vacate. In view of this, Mr. Bauman’s transfer constituted a “demotion.” As a result of this demotion, Mr. Bauman suffered considerable emotional distress.

Mr. Bauman filed suit against Lilly on August 19, 2022, alleging that Lilly had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to provide him with a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Following the close of discovery, Lilly moved for summary judgment, arguing, in relevant part, that Mr. Bauman lacked standing to recover compensatory damages for the emotional distress he had suffered (and continued to suffer) because he “never experienced any physical manifestations of those feelings, never sought advice or treatment from any professionals, such as therapists, psychologists, or social workers, or talked to anyone outside of his family regarding any alleged emotional distress, and never took any medications to treat his stress or ‘emotional’ feelings.”

The district court granted Lilly’s motion on July 8, 2025. The district court concluded that the Seventh Circuit’s jurisprudence establishes that “emotional distress, without physical manifestation or medical diagnosis, is not a concrete harm” and, accordingly, that Mr. Bauman had not suffered an “injury in fact” and lacked standing to recover compensatory damages, and that, as a result, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to that claim.

The Employment Law Clinic was granted leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Mr. Bauman. In its brief, the Clinic argued that the district court erroneously ruled, in relevant part, that Mr. Bauman had failed to establish that he had experienced concrete harm as a result of Lilly’s violations of Title VII because the emotional distress he had suffered did not have a “physical manifestation” and he had not received a “medical diagnosis.” The Clinic presented the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which authorizes the award of such damages for “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1) and (b)(3).

After the case was fully briefed and set for oral argument, the parties agreed to a settlement and dismissed the appeal.

William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program

In early 2024, the Employment Law Clinic expanded its work with pro se litigants by participating in the William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program (“Hibbler Help Desk”). The Hibbler Help Desk is administered by the People’s Law Center in cooperation with the District Court and the Chicago Bar Foundation. It is “staffed” by volunteer attorneys. The program serves pro se litigants in civil cases filed or to be filed in the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern and Western Divisions. A Program attorney provides pro se litigants with limited legal assistance with their cases. In particular, the Hibbler Help Desk provides pro se litigants with help on procedural issues, not substantive legal advice.

Since the Employment Law Clinic began helping pro se litigants, students in the Clinic have met with and assisted more than sixty pro se litigants. The support we have provided includes helping clients complete the documents needed to file a pro se employment discrimination complaint; providing guidance on submitting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosures, written discovery requests, and responses; helping clients comply with the NDIL’s rules regarding motions to compel discovery; explaining the status of the pro se litigant’s case or appeal; referring clients to resources that could assist them with the substantive legal issues in their cases; and referring pro se litigants to other providers of civil legal services or to social service agencies.