Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02085/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted December 10, 2024*

Decided December 13, 2024 

Before 

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge 

JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge 

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 23-2085 

DEFREESE SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BRYAN CIPOLLA, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 21-CV-1387 

Manish S. Shah, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Defreese Smith, a former employee of Sony Digital Audio Disc Corporation, 

appeals the summary judgment rejecting her claims that the company and her 

managers discriminated against her based on race and sex. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 

2000e-2. We affirm. 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record 

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the 

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

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

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

Case: 23-2085 Document: 40 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pages: 3
No. 23-2085 Page 2 

In May 2018, Smith was investigated by Sony DADC’s human resources office 

for violating workplace policy. She was overheard commenting that a recently deceased 

supervisor had “got what she deserved.” Smith learned of the investigation and left an 

angry voicemail message on an HR manager’s phone, threatening the coworker who 

reported her and disparaging the coworker’s character and appearance. Several days 

later, after meeting with HR managers about the investigation, Smith walked into the 

HR office crying, banging on the walls, and yelling that she wanted to go home. She 

then left more voicemail messages and texts for the managers, complaining about the 

investigation, denying that she had made any offensive statements, and speculating 

about the behavior of other coworkers. 

After the HR office closed its investigation (its findings proved inconclusive), 

Sony DADC fired Smith. Sony DADC concluded that Smith’s conduct during the 

investigation violated workplace policies against disruptive and inappropriate 

behavior. 

Smith filed suit, asserting under federal and state law that Sony DADC and 

numerous managers conspired, discriminated, and retaliated against her based on her 

race and sex. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), 2000e-2. 

The district judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied 

it in part. The judge dismissed Smith’s state law claims, the § 1983 conspiracy claim, and 

the § 1985 retaliation claim for failing to state a claim. But the judge granted Smith leave 

to file an amended complaint clarifying her § 1981 and Title VII discrimination claims. 

She did not follow up on the court’s invitation. 

The defendants then moved for summary judgment, and the judge granted the 

motion. The judge accepted as undisputed the defendants’ proposed statement of facts 

because Smith did not respond to it. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1. As for the merits, the judge 

concluded that some of Smith’s claims were time-barred, and the others failed as a 

matter of proof. 

On appeal, Smith does not engage with the district judge’s reasons for granting 

summary judgment. She simply recites the facts that she says took place. To the extent 

she thinks the judge wrongly admitted the defendants’ statement of facts, the judge was 

entitled to insist on strict compliance with local rules. See Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 

886–87 (7th Cir. 2011). Local Rule 56.1(e) requires that a party opposing summary 

judgment respond to each disputed fact with “citations to the supporting evidentiary 

material,” and a movant’s proposed facts “may be deemed admitted if not controverted 

Case: 23-2085 Document: 40 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pages: 3
No. 23-2085 Page 3 

with specific citations to evidentiary material.” Even pro se litigants like Smith are not 

exempt from procedural rules or the consequences of failing to comply with them. 

See McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 787 n.2 (7th Cir. 2019). Because 

Smith failed to respond to the defendants’ statement of facts, the judge appropriately 

exercised his discretion to treat the defendants’ facts as admitted. 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 23-2085 Document: 40 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pages: 3