## Facts

- Francine Yates suffered from depression and anxiety and was homeless when she applied to John Marshall Law School (JMLS) for admission.
- Yates applied for two entering terms (January 2008 and August 2008) and indicated on her applications that she was homeless.
- JMLS did not act on Yates’s first application because she did not pay the application fee.
- JMLS denied Yates’s second application by letter dated May 5, 2008.
- About a week after the denial, Yates met with JMLS’s dean, William Powers, and told him about her mental-health conditions and homelessness and raised other complaints; Powers agreed to reconsider her application.
- A few weeks later, Powers informed Yates by email that JMLS again denied admission, explaining that her LSAT score was too low under the school’s admissions criteria.
- The next month, Yates met with Powers again and told him she had recently been falsely arrested; she sought additional meetings, but Powers declined.
- Yates (pro se) filed suit against JMLS asserting emotional-distress tort theories and additional statutory and civil-rights theories tied to the admissions denial and subsequent communications.
- JMLS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Yates sought to add a retaliation claim and requested injunctive relief, asserting that JMLS retaliated by filing the motion to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether Yates’s pleadings stated plausible claims for relief against a private law school based on the denial of admission and related interactions.
2. Whether Yates stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law based on JMLS’s admissions decision and refusal to continue meeting with her.
3. Whether Yates stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law arising out of JMLS’s admissions process and communications.
4. Whether JMLS’s filing of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion could support a retaliation claim and justify amendment and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted JMLS’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the claims against JMLS.
- To the extent Yates relied on constitutional or civil-rights theories requiring state action, the court held her allegations did not plausibly treat JMLS (a private law school) as a state actor.
- The court found the complaint did not plausibly connect the admissions denial to unlawful discrimination and identified the school’s stated, non-discriminatory basis for denial: an LSAT score below the school’s criteria.
- The court dismissed Yates’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct—denying admission, communicating that decision, and declining further meetings—was not extreme and outrageous as required by Illinois law.
- The court dismissed Yates’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because the pleadings did not establish a recognized duty and breach supporting emotional-distress liability under Illinois law in this setting.
- The court denied Yates’s motion to add a retaliation claim and for injunctive relief, holding that filing a motion to dismiss is an authorized and ordinary litigation step and, without more, is not retaliatory.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint must include enough well-pleaded factual content to make each claim plausible; legal conclusions and speculation do not suffice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Claims that depend on constitutional violations (such as § 1983-type theories) generally require facts showing the defendant acted “under color of state law”; a private school is not a state actor absent specific allegations tying it to the state.
- In evaluating discrimination-type theories at the pleading stage, courts look for nonconclusory facts supporting an inference that an adverse decision was taken because of a protected trait rather than neutral criteria.
- Under Illinois law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent or reckless disregard of the probability of causing severe distress, and (3) severe emotional distress; routine institutional decisions and ordinary communications ordinarily do not meet the “extreme and outrageous” threshold.
- Under Illinois law, negligent infliction of emotional distress requires a cognizable duty, breach, causation, and compensable injury; allegations tied to an admissions decision, without more, do not establish an actionable negligence-based emotional-distress claim.
- A defendant’s use of procedures authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, is not itself actionable retaliation and does not warrant injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Yates’s claims against John Marshall Law School at the pleading stage because her allegations did not plausibly establish actionable civil-rights or discrimination liability against a private school and did not satisfy Illinois requirements for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; the court also rejected her attempt to add a retaliation claim and obtain injunctive relief based solely on the school’s filing of a motion to dismiss.


Yates v. John Marshall Law School, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39819 (2009)