Case ID: f-appx_230/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ludmyla SKORYCHENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOMEN'S COMMUNITY, John M. Schellpfeffer, and Andrew W. Schmidt, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-1769.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted July 6, 2007.
    
    Decided Aug. 6, 2007.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 27, 2007.
    Ludmyla Skorychenko, Wausau, WI, pro se.
    John T. Payette, Cook & Franke, Madison, WI, Edward A. Hannan, Hannan & Associates, Brookfield, WI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    
   Order

Last year we held that the complaint in this case sufficed to state a claim, and we remanded for further proceedings. No. 06-2164 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2006) (unpublished order). The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims (dismissing state-law claims without prejudice), and plaintiff has appealed a second time.

All of the federal theories depend on plaintiffs contention that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her Ukrainian national origin. To establish discrimination, plaintiff had to establish that other persons, similarly situated but of a different national origin, were treated better than she was. The district court concluded that a reasonable jury could not find discrimination on this record, and we agree. All of plaintiffs arguments boil down to contentions that she was entitled to one or another benefit. But the possibility that defendants made a mistake does not establish discrimination. Plaintiffs brief does not identify any similarly situated person of different national origin who received the benefits that plaintiff sought. Accordingly, the record would not permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that discrimination occurred.

Affirmed.