The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Raza v. Accenture LLP
Overview
Plaintiff claims that he was passed over for promotions and other leadership opportunities, and was eventually fired because of the organization's goal of increasing the representation of women in leadership to achieve gender parity.
Details
On May 30, 2025, Defendant filed a for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that he was terminated because of a protected activity nor did he provide enough facts to support an inference that Defendant took adverse action against him due to his gender. Defendant also asserted that Plaintiff's Title VII and Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) claims are time-barred.
Plaintiff then filed a response to oppose the motion asserting that Defendant ignored the notice requirements which state that a only needs to set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Additionally, Plaintiff asserted that the court must "construe all facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff" when analyzing the complaint. Plaintiff then maintained that they had clearly stated claims for retaliation, gender discrimination, and failure to promote.
On October 6, 2025, both parties agreed to dismiss the case.
Court
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Status
Filed April 14, 2025 | Settled
Details about the dismissal and any settlement terms were not provided.