dedicated to work worked a full eight hour shift and then was approached by one of his lower junior advisers to ask if you could work a second shift he said no i cannot work a second shift i'm lucky i'm basically here at all and said that you can't work a second shift he turned in his radio but then he saw that his father who was also working at the company for almost fifty years now was still working to fix the machine ask you a question yes i understood from your opponent's brief that even though he may have turned his radio in and so forth that he was in fact still on the clock for pay purposes during the time he's helping his father then the action of the other supervisor wanting him to perform a different task would be quite understandable if he's not on the card just kind of hanging out at the shop i don't know whether people are allowed to do that but at least it's not a pay issue correct it wasn't  one never dealt with the substance of the case he never dealt with the material facts that we believe are in dispute the allegations of racial discrimination that we allege here because we have someone who's a dedicated worker for twenty years thing is different and and part of the reason for that the charge requirement is so that the e e o c can go through the proper conciliation proceedings and if it's trying to conciliate a retaliation claim no one has you know it doesn't have the ability and the employer doesn't have the ability to bring forth evidence that might be relevant to the discrimination claim it's just there's a mismatch correct but the seventh circuit has had a hell you haven't said there's no difference between there are some time element in this in this case regarding our dog and the supervisors who are african american who treat unarmed african american employer employees differently than the other ones when we have when we look at the substance of everything going on here the time the place and substance are all the same and so the department was put on notice of these allegations they chose to ignore them we provided the department with six witnesses to corroborate these stories they didn't contact a single one and then you didn't actually found and then to charge right with all that bright box we didn't file an amended charge judge but it was my concern about notice to the other side understood  when we talk about notice the other side i never received any of the exhibits or responded exhibits that they survive either the way that the party worked was they sent noble letters to me and interviewed us privately we responded to those questions they reached out to the defendants they really spoke with them responded to their exhibits i never saw their exhibits and it was a very almost isolated type of investigation origin discrimination claims could not be raised in the lawsuit because they were not originally raised in the underlying administrative charge initially both title seven and the illinois human rights act generally are raising issues in the lawsuit that were not raised with alleges he was demoted in retaliation for a family member filing the e e o c charge seventeen years prior to the adverts action it instance here he claims that a family member file that charge in one thousand nine hundred eighty and that he was demoted in two thousand retaliation so what we're left with legally is that this court case law in the case law that the district court properly relies on is in this case it's clear that when retaliation is the underlying charge at the administrative agency that is the only charge that can tally ation that plaintiff had been discriminated against on the basis of his race and it says that he was not promoted to a day shift position on the basis of his race that's all the letter s appeal page seventy four seventy nine legally also an export a communication to an agency is not sufficient to enlarge the set of claims that an individual can raise outside of the administrative charge the district court was again correct in its an issue in the looking at the old work vs continental casualty company case from one thousand nine hundred three there the court pointed out that the claim the point of sought out in the complaint was time barred as it is here the court also recognize that in order to enlarge issues to be raised in a lawsuit they actually have to be implied in the underlying charge and then also communicated to the employer in the course of the investigation in order to enlarge those claims open to litigation here neither of those things happened the charge has  no implication whatsoever of race or national origin discrimination and i think that's clear from looking at the allegations in the charge and none of those issues were actually communicated dardar it was never put on notice for example that he was claiming that african americans were treated any better than not african americans at the plant so we do have a notice issue as i believe your honor observed turning to the second ruling for the district court in this case which is a summary judgment on the actual retaliation charge it's our position that was correct or at least hispanic background he actually gave deposition testimony in direct contradiction to that assertion when he said that he only ever raise concerns with the union president and not to any art on managers or supervisors that's one record of the people page thirty one  that foreclose is the idea that anyone at ardagh had knowledge of a protected activity in order to actually retaliate against him even ignoring the deposition admission mr savant is this vague references to complaints correct activity cases that summary judgment should be granted when the only allegation set forth to the court with a record of evidence is speaking in sweeping terms with generalities and no real level of detail as to what the underlying protected activity attempted to contact him to assign work to him and they did not respond to that radio call do not have the radio on him and that upon being instructed by a supervisor to leave the facility he did not leave the facility on that basis or demoted him in two thousand and fifteen and we believe that that is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason in order to take that adverse action for these reasons the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to art on the retaliation claim se person checks the wrong box even though he and then there is a spring up a complaint after the fact that doesn't relate directly to that check that box and ship both those cases found in those situations that delayed again was afforded the ability to proceed on his complaint in issues outside the check being back in the box being checked because the court looks at a liberal view of the overall understanding of what we're trying to do here the go we have a supervisor who lied under oath tend about ever being disciplined to their key witness and then when in discovering they reveal that she'd been written up ten different times there are six different disputed issues of material fact on this in the court will take a brief recess before the final case o