Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01908/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01908-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Debra A. Foster
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 9, 2016*

Decided November 10, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1908

DEBRA A. FOSTER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 13 C 04690

Geraldine Soat Brown,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

In this employment‐discrimination suit, Debra Foster appeals from the grant of

summary judgment for her former employer, the Social Security Administration. Foster

asserted that she was subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment

because of her race, gender, and disability, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and 29 U.S.C.

§ 791 (the Rehabilitation Act), and that she suffered retaliation for complaining to a

                                                 

* We have unanimously 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 16-1908 Document: 12 Filed: 11/10/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1908    Page 2

training coordinator about an instructor and for filing an EEO complaint. The

magistrate judge determined that no reasonable jury could find in her favor on any of

her claims. We affirm.

The following description of events is taken largely from the agency’s statement

of material facts, which Foster failed to counter in the manner required by Northern

District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) and which the district court properly deemed

undisputed for the purposes of summary judgment. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 914

(7th Cir. 2016). Foster, an African‐American woman, was hired in 2010 by the Social

Security Administration as a Claims Authorizer through the “Ticket to Work” program

for individuals with disabilities. Foster testified that she was diagnosed with depression

more than 30 years ago and previously received disability benefits for it. At SSA, only a

human‐resources employee knew that she had a disability.   

Foster believed that the agency discriminated against her by giving her poor

training and mentoring. In her view the initial training received by all new hires was

deficient, and others in her training class received more instructor attention. She also

thought that the agency did not properly accommodate her multiple requests for more

refresher training—on top of the one‐on‐one case assistance she had received from her

assigned mentors as well as two months of prior refresher training that she had

requested and received. In her first year, she twice requested and received a new

mentor; she believed that her mentors had graded her harshly, took too long to return

her work, and did not communicate effectively.   

Foster also disputed her negative performance evaluations, which, she believed,

were discriminatory and reflected a hostile work environment. Most of her reviews

highlighted her difficulties performing the work. Foster did receive the highest rating

on her first annual performance review, but that review also pointed out that she

struggled working on cases independently, rushed to meet productivity goals, and had

not progressed enough. Foster blamed insufficient training for these shortcomings.

Foster also asserted retaliation after she told a training coordinator of a comment

that her instructor had made about the Obama administration. The instructor, she said,

thereafter would not let her take a makeup test and graded her unfairly. She also

believed that she was mistreated after filing her EEO complaint; her mentors took

longer to return her work, and she received negative evaluations.

Case: 16-1908 Document: 12 Filed: 11/10/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1908    Page 3

A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), granted

summary judgment in favor of the agency. The magistrate judge determined that

Foster’s discrimination and retaliation claims failed because she could not show that she

suffered any material adverse employment action, an essential element for a prima facie

case for both claims. Her disability‐discrimination claim also failed because she

presented no evidence that any of her supervisors or mentors knew about her disability.

Nor did she produce evidence that SSA had subjected her to harassment that was

sufficiently severe or pervasive to suggest a hostile work environment.   

On appeal Foster has submitted a brief that essentially raises the same arguments

that she raised in the district court. But she has failed to develop any argument that

would provide a basis to disturb the judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). We have

reviewed the record and considered all of Foster’s arguments, and we AFFIRM for

substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

Case: 16-1908 Document: 12 Filed: 11/10/2016 Pages: 3