for filing a charge at the EEOC. While Dr. Hatcher’s complaint mentions in a few places that she reported sexual harassment internally on behalf of a student and discussed shortcomings of the sexual harassment policy, there is no allegation in the complaint itself that the student was an employee of SIU. That omission is crucial for Title VII purposes. Under Title VII, an employee must identify an unlawful employment practice that is prohibited by that statute. 42 U.S.C. § 2000r-3(a). Without this essential information, there is no suggestion in the complaint that in supporting the student, Dr. Hatcher was opposing unlawful employment discrimination, and therefore engaging in a statutorily protected activity. See Roots P’ship v. Lands’ End, 965 F.2d 1411, 1417 (7th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). So the district court properly dismissed that
holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim holding dismissal proper where complaint fails to allege an essential element of plaintiffs claim holding dollar amount is not an essential element holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice