Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01804/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 10, 2024*

Decided December 19, 2024 

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge 

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1804 

XENA AMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:21-cv-02652-MPB-KMB

Matthew P. Brookman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

Xena Ames, a Black woman over the age of 40, sued Federal Express Corporation 

after her resignation from the company in 2021. Ames accused FedEx of failing to 

accommodate her disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12117; subjecting her to sex- and race-based harassment, in violation 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED.

R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 24-1804 Document: 27 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pages: 2
No. 24-1804 Page 2 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; declining to promote her 

because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 621–634; and retaliating against her for filing a lawsuit alleging workplace 

discrimination, in violation of Title VII. The district judge granted FedEx’s motion for 

summary judgment. The judge concluded that claim preclusion barred Ames’s 

disability claim, and that her other claims failed for lack of proof.

On appeal, Ames—now proceeding pro se—has submitted an opening brief that 

does not engage with the district court’s reasoning. Instead, she recounts in detail the 

harm she alleges has been caused by FedEx’s conduct. Although Ames is pro se, she 

must still comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which

requires her to file a brief with her “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations 

to the authorities and parts of the record on which [she] relies.” FED. R. APP. P.

28(a)(8)(A); see Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). And while we

construe pro se filings generously, “we must be able to discern cogent arguments in any 

appellate brief, even one from a pro se litigant.” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545. Her reply 

brief hints at new arguments undeveloped in her opening brief, but arguments 

appearing for the first time in a reply brief are waived. See Porco v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 

453 F.3d 390, 395 (7th Cir. 2006). 

DISMISSED

Case: 24-1804 Document: 27 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pages: 2