Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02312/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02312-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

  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).  

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 21, 2010*

Decided January 28, 2010

Before

     JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

                     JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2312

MARY WILLIAMS,

           Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MACON RESOURCES, INC.,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 08‐2009

David G. Bernthal,

Magistrate Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2312 Document: 18 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐2312 Page 2

** “Schizoaffective disorder is a condition in which a person experiences a

combination of schizophrenia symptoms ‐ such as hallucinations or delusions ‐ and of mood

disorder symptoms, such as mania or depression.” (Mayo Clinic Definition of

Schizoaffective Disorder, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizoaffective‐disorder/

DS00866 (last visited January 28, 2010)).

O R D E R

Mary Williams, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder**, was fired from Macon

Resources, Inc., after she exhibited threatening behavior toward staff after her discharge.

She sued Macon for disability discrimination among other things.  A magistrate judge,

presiding by consent, understood her complaint to raise a claim under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and granted summary judgment in favor of Macon.  The court found: 1)

that Williams had failed to establish that her medical condition limited her from any major

life activities; 2) that even if Macon perceived her as disabled, she had failed to offer any

evidence to rebut Macon’s otherwise legitimate reason for discharging her—that Macon

considered her dangerous; and 3) that she offered no evidence that similarly‐situated, non‐

disabled employees were treated more favorably.  

On appeal, Williams narrates her account of the termination and makes a

generalized assertion of discrimination, but she fails to identify any error in the magistrate

judgeʹs reasoning or articulate any basis for disturbing the judgment.  She cites no legal

authority and makes no reference to the record.  A litigant is required to supply “‘an

argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to

supporting authority.’”  Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoting

Anderson v. Harman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)); see FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).  And

although we construe pro se filings liberally, we are unable to ascertain a cogent argument

in Williamʹs brief.  See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545.  

DISMISSED.

Case: 09-2312 Document: 18 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pages: 2