Saud v. DePaul University: The Importance Of Recordkeeping For Employers

When an employer offers one explanation at the time of an employee's termination and a different one under oath months later, can such inconsistencies be viewed as potential evidence of discriminatory motive? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Saud v. DePaul University, 2025 WL 2846441 (7th Cir. 2025) held that an employer's inconsistent reasoning given at the time of an employee's dismissal and then later in a deposition were not enough to show pretext in a race discrimination suit. The court's analysis in Saud v. DePaul University highlights the critical importance of clear recordkeeping for employers—particularly when the reasons behind employee personnel decisions change due to circumstances.

Case Background

The claimant in Saud v. DePaul  was a non-tenure-track faculty member at DePaul University. On April 10, 2017, the University informed the claimant that due to low enrollment and budgetary reasons, the University would not be renewing his contract. The next day, the claimant's department chair emailed the school about retaining the claimant as an adjunct. Also on April 10, an attorney sent the claimant and the University a letter alleging that the claimant had committed “repeated acts of sexual misconduct . . . involving” one of his students. After an initial Title IX inquiry found insufficient evidence of misconduct, the department chair moved forward with adjunct planning for the claimant's fall courses. Shortly after, a student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct while enrolled in one of the claimant's courses. The department chair decided not to hire the claimant as an adjunct, citing low projected enrollment and the claimant's compensation demand, with the lawsuit and other reports of misconduct also factored into the decision.

After a second Title IX investigation, prompted by the student's lawsuit and the claimant's confirmation that misconduct did in fact occur, the university deemed the claimant ineligible for future employment. The claimant sued the university, alleging race discrimination under Section 1981. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university and the claimant appealed.

On appeal, the claimant argued that the university's reasons to not continue his contract were shifting and inconsistent, therefore, giving rise to pretext. The Seventh Circuit disagreed and affirmed summary judgment for the university, stating pretext requires explanations that are actually shifting and inconsistent, “[m]erely providing multiple, or additional, reasons for an adverse employment decision does not establish pretext.”

A Cautionary Tale Regarding the Importance of Recordkeeping

Employers will welcome this decision as it confirms that relying on multiple, non-discriminatory reasons for employment decisions will not amount to pretext where earlier non-discriminatory reasons are maintained. Saud is a strong reminder that documentation matters. Employment decisions often involve several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Sometimes, employers discover additional legitimate reasons for employment decisions after an internal investigation, or further review. Courts will not infer pretext merely because an employer offers multiple rationales over time, so long as they are not contradictory and earlier reasons are preserved.

When employment decisions are challenged, the employer's credibility often hinges on whether its stated reasons for an employment decision are consistent and well-documented. Employers should ensure that employee personnel files and internal memorandums reflect what the decisionmaker reviewed and believed at the time of the decision. A clear record allows employers to prove employment decisions were made based on credible, documented information and remain firm-footed when litigation or new allegations surface.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.