Founder
In employment discrimination appeals, proving that an employer acted with unlawful intent is often the most challenging hurdle. Federal and Illinois courts don’t reweigh the facts; they review the record for legal or procedural errors. That means any evidence of discriminatory motive must already be in the file. For workers in Illinois who lost at trial or during agency review, the path to reversal lies in successfully proving discriminatory intent.
What Discriminatory Intent Means Under Federal and Illinois Law
Discriminatory intent refers to an employer’s decision to take adverse action—such as firing, demoting, or denying a promotion—based at least in part on a protected characteristic. Under federal law, this includes race, color, religion, sex, national origin (Title VII), age (ADEA), and disability (ADA). Illinois law follows a similar framework under the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on a broad set of protected classes.
Intent can be explicit, but more often, it’s inferred from context. Courts consider whether bias was a motivating factor—not just whether the employer had mixed motives. Disparate treatment claims focus on motive, while disparate impact claims target policies that disproportionately affect certain groups. On appeal, proving intent involves showing how the trial court or agency misapplied legal standards or ignored evidence suggesting unlawful bias.
Types of Evidence Used to Prove Intent
Appellate courts don’t allow new evidence. Everything must come from the trial court record or the administrative file. That makes it crucial to understand the kinds of proof that support an inference of discriminatory intent:
- Direct evidence: Explicit statements or written communications reflecting bias (e.g., “We’re looking for someone younger”).
- Circumstantial evidence:
- Timing of adverse actions (e.g., immediately after a pregnancy disclosure)
- Shifting justifications for termination
- Departure from standard company procedures
- Comparative evidence: Showing that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received better treatment.
- Statistical patterns: In larger workplaces, patterns in hiring, promotions, or terminations that disproportionately affect one group.
In both federal and Illinois cases, this evidence must be tied to legal arguments that were raised and preserved. Appeals are not a chance to reargue fairness—they are a challenge to how the law was applied to the record.
Standards of Review on Appeal
In federal court, appellate judges review summary judgment decisions de novo, meaning they examine the legal conclusions without deferring to the lower court. Factual findings after a bench trial are reviewed for “clear error,” and jury verdicts are reviewed with substantial deference. The most common framework for analyzing discriminatory intent is the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test:
- Did the employee establish a prima facie case of discrimination?
- Did the employer offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason?
- Can the employee show that reason was a pretext for discrimination?
Illinois appellate courts reviewing decisions under the Illinois Human Rights Act use slightly different language but apply a similar analysis. They may overturn findings if the Commission’s decision was clearly erroneous, legally incorrect, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. If an administrative law judge or the Commission failed to draw proper inferences from the record, that error can be grounds for reversal.
How Appellate Attorneys Strengthen Discrimination Claims
Employment discrimination appeals demand more than a strong trial record—they require strategic legal analysis and sharp written advocacy. At The Keleher Appellate Law Group, we focus exclusively on appellate and post-trial matters. We know what federal and Illinois appellate courts expect when reviewing claims of discriminatory intent, and we know how to craft arguments that meet those expectations.
We begin by identifying where the trial court or agency got it wrong:
- Did the judge ignore critical circumstantial evidence?
- Did the court grant summary judgment despite genuine issues of material fact?
- Was the burden-shifting framework misapplied under McDonnell Douglas?
We analyze the entire record for legal errors that affected the outcome and develop arguments tailored to each appellate forum. In federal cases, that means showing how Title VII standards were misapplied or overlooked. In Illinois appeals, we examine how the Human Rights Commission interpreted and weighed evidence—and whether it deviated from established legal precedent.
Our firm works with employees and trial counsel in Chicago and throughout Illinois to build persuasive appeals grounded in the record and focused on results.
Why Legal Strategy Matters in Discrimination Appeals
Proving discriminatory intent on appeal is not just about having a strong case—it’s about showing where the lower court or commission got it wrong. Whether you’re challenging a federal ruling under Title VII or an Illinois Human Rights Act decision, success on appeal depends on precise legal arguments and a deep understanding of appellate procedure.
The Keleher Appellate Law Group focuses exclusively on appeals. We work to protect employee rights by turning errors in judgment into grounds for reversal. If you believe the trial court or agency mishandled your discrimination case, we’re ready to review the record and build a compelling case on your behalf. Contact our Chicago office today to get started with an accomplished appellate attorney.