Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03657/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03657-0/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 May 11, 2015*

Decided May 11, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3657

RALPH E. STEINBARTH,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET

GROUP, INC.,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 11 C 8537

Milton I. Shadur,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ralph Steinbarth appeals the grant of summary judgment for his former

employer, Whole Foods, in this lawsuit claiming employment discrimination and

retaliation based on his race and national origin under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We dismiss the appeal.

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-3657 Document: 17 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐3657    Page 2

Steinbarth, a white man with a mixed background (German, Polish, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, and Jewish), joined the meat department of a Whole Foods in Chicago in

mid‐2008. A few months later, Agustin Murillo, who was born in Mexico, became his

supervisor, and a tense relationship ensued. Steinbarth complained to a

human‐resources officer that Murillo would often mention his Jewish heritage,

mispronounce a German phrase Steinbarth had taught him, and schedule Steinbarth to

work undesirable shifts. After Steinbarth also voiced a desire to advance to a “meat

cutter” position, he was assured by Murillo that he would be next in line to begin a

meat‐cutter apprenticeship. But in December 2009, Murillo instead promoted fellow

meat‐department employee Israel Gutierrez, who also was born in Mexico. Later that

month, Steinbarth was reprimanded by Murillo for placing his work gloves on the sales

counter. Steinbarth asked Murillo not to embarrass him by scolding him in public and

then went into another room alone and shouted a string of curse words in Spanish.

Murillo reported the incident up the chain and Steinbarth was eventually fired for

directing profanity at his supervisor.

Steinbarth sued Whole Foods, claiming that, because of his race and national

origin, he was denied a promotion, subjected to a hostile work environment, and then

fired in retaliation for complaining about the work environment. The district court

granted summary judgment for Whole Foods. Regarding Steinbarth’s failure‐to‐promote

claim, the court determined that he produced no evidence to show that he was as

qualified as Gutierrez or that Whole Foods’s reasons for promoting Gutierrez were

pretextual. As for Steinbarth’s hostile‐work‐environment claim, the court concluded that

he introduced no evidence that Murillo’s periodic and condescending “jabs” about his

ancestry were sufficiently severe or pervasive, or that Murillo’s other conduct was

causally related to his race or national origin. Finally, regarding retaliatory discharge,

the court found no evidence that Murillo’s decision to report Steinbarth stemmed from

any alleged protected activity.

On appeal, Steinbarth recites several facts that he believes prove his case, among

them that Murillo had promoted a “personal friend” over him despite his positive

performance reviews, that Whole Foods’s pre‐firing investigation was phony, and that

he can produce more documentation of how Murillo “jerk[ed him] around.” But he does

not present any legal argument suggesting how the district court erred or why we

should disturb its judgment. See Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 645 (7th Cir.

2014); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) requires that an appellant’s brief contain an argument that

includes “contentions and the reasons for them,” and pro se litigants must adhere to

Case: 14-3657 Document: 17 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐3657    Page 3

procedural rules, see Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008).

Steinbarth’s briefs present us with no developed claim to review.

DISMISSED.

Case: 14-3657 Document: 17 Filed: 05/11/2015 Pages: 3