### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-2108

A M Y S W Y E AR , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

F ARE F OOD S C ORP OR AT I O N , Defendant-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the

S o uthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s
. No . 3 :1 6 -cv -0 1 2 1 4 -S M Y-R JD — Sta ci M. Ya ndle , Judg e
.

S UB MI TT E D O C T OB E R 29, 2018 *

— D E C I D E D D E C E MB E R 26, 2018

Befor e B AU E R

, E A S T E R

B R O O K , and S C UD D E R

, Circuit Judges

. B AU E R , Cir cuit Judge. Amy S wy ear fi led thi s acti on agai nst her for m er employ er

, Far e Foods Cor por ati on, allegi ng sexual

* A fter ex a mi n i ng the b ri efs a nd reco rd, w e h a v e co ncl uded tha t ora l

a rgument i s unnecessa ry. Thus, the a ppea l i s s ub mi tted o n the b ri efs a nd

reco rd. S eeFed. R . A pp. P. 3 4 (a )(2 )(C).2 No. 18-2108
di scr i min ati on, sexual har assment, and retali ati on in v i olati on of T i tle VII, a nd br each o f contr act. After the par ti es each

mov e d f or summary j udgment, the di str i ct cour t gr anted Far e Foods’ moti on on all clai ms. For the r e a s o n s s et f or th her ein, w e affi r m the deci si on of the di str i c t cour t.

I. BACKGROUND W e pr esent the facts in a li ght most fav or able to S w y ear
. When a di sputed fact ar i ses we n o te i t, but because thi s case
w as deci d ed agai nst S wy ear on summary j udgment, w e m ust constr ue the f acts in a li ght most fav or able to her

. S e e e.g., Hostetler v
. Quality Dining, Inc. , 218 F

. 3d 798, 802 (7th Ci r
. 2000). Far e Foods Cor por ati on i s in the business of selling concessi on pr oducts and equi pme n t

. I t i s owned by Ron a nd L aur a P or ter and headquar ter ed in Du Quoi n, Illi noi s
. The c ompany employs both insi de and outsi de sales r epr e s e ntati v es, the oper ati v e d i stincti on being that insi de sales r epr esentativ es
w or k in a n offi ce setti ng in Du Quoi n, wher eas outsi de sales

r epr esentati v e s t r a v el to v ar i ous locati ons, at least p ar t of the ti me, to ser v e cli ents and dr um up new busi ness. Amy S w y ear w as inter v i ew ed s ev er al ti m es for a posi t ion
as an outsi de sales r epr esentati v e at Far e Foo d s. O n J une 18, 2 0 15, S wy ear met wi th S cott Har sy , the company’s human

r eso u r c es super v i sor

, Robbi e Wi l li ams, the company’s sales manager , a n d Ron P or ter to di scuss the p osi ti on. 1 At thi s

1 The pa rti es do no t a gree o n whether P o rter w a s present a t thi s meeti ng. Po rter cl a i ms he wa s no t present b ut S wyea r cl a i ms he wa s
. Ho wev er, Fa re Fo o ds’ v eri fi ed respo nse to S wyea r’s co mpl a i nt in the Il l i no i s Depa rtment (co nti nued...)No. 18-2108 3
meeti ng, S wy ear clai ms P or ter indi cated that she w ould b e the fi r st female outsi de sales r epr esentati v e. 2 S w y ear also c l ai ms P or ter expr e s s ed c oncer n regar ding her abi li ty to per for m effecti v ely in a fi eld dominated by m en at thi s meeti ng. How ev er

, P or ter later testi fi ed that he li ked the i dea of hi ring
a w oman because they could get men to d o thi ngs l i ke unload the deli v er y tr ucks or make sales: Q: H o w d o e s [ a sa l e s r e p r e sentati v e’s assi s ti ng dr i v er s wi th deli v er i es] r elate to hav ing sex appeal? A: Female gender

, in my opi ni on, hav e the abi li ty to make males unload tr u cks for them. Q: Di d y ou say that to some of y our employ ees p r io r t o Amy bei ng hi r ed? A: No. Q: Di d y ou feel Amy had that abi l i ty? A: Y es. Q: Di d y ou feel that female sales r epr esentati v es also had the abi l i ty to make sales tow a r ds male customer s? A: Y es. Q: Is that one of the r easons why y ou hi r ed Amy?

1 (...co nti nued)

o f Huma n R ights sta tes, “ Pri o r to her sta rt da te

... R o n P orter ..., Wi l li a ms,
a nd Ha rsy m e t wi th S wyea r o n June 18 , 2 0 15 , to di scuss her empl o yment
a nd Fa re Fo ods’ ex pecta ti o ns.”

2 P o rter testi fi ed a t hi s depo si ti o n tha t Fa re Fo o ds empl o y ed s ev era l fema l e
o utsi de sa les representa ti v es b efo re S wyea r.4 No. 18-2108
A: No. P or ter also testi fi ed to the followi ng: Q: Di d y ou ha v e a n y i mpr essi ons or h esi tati ons tow ar ds hav ing a female staff m ember being on the r oad a lone? A: No. Q: No hesi tati ons about thei r safety? A: W ell, I’v e alw ays got a fear about somebody’s safety

. Q: But because they’r e female? A: I j ust think that’s i n our geneti cs. Q: Geneti cs? A: Y es. W e’r e supposed to be the pr otector of t h e f e m a l e gender . W

e ar e the male. Q: S o y ou feel that the men of the w or ld a r e s u p p osed to pr otect the w omen? A: I thi nk the Lor d beli ev ed that, y es. Q: Hav e y ou se n t f e m a l e s a le s s t a f f on the r oad alone befor e? A: Y es. Nev er theless, the afor ementi oned meeti ng r esulted in the par ti es agr eei ng S w y ear ’s f i r st day of w or k a t Far e Foods

w ould be June 22, 2015. S hor tly after her employment began, Swy ear notic e d the

env i r onment a t Far e Foods w as at ti mes unpr ofessi onal. Male employ ees w er e often r efer r ed to by offensi v e ni cknames such

as “Bi tchy Ri tchi e” and “Ni ps.” One female customer who ranNo. 18-2108 5

a c oncessi on called “Conti ’s” and w a s thought by the employees of Far e Foods to be a c h allengi n g customer w as gi v en the ni ckname “Cu n ty

.” Another female customer w as refer r ed to as “Bi g Ti tti e Blonde Car ni e.” The staff also openly di scussed the sexual acti v i ti es of outsi de sales r e p r e s e n t a t iv e Ru s s e l l S cott and di spar aged the w omen he a s soci ated wi th. Wi l li ams, the manager of the sales team, attempted to p r etend these conv er sati ons w er e not happening, putti ng hi s finger s in hi s e a r s to demonstr ate he w as blocking i t o u t

. S w y ear ov er h ear d

cow or ker s talk about how one female employ ee dr essed inappr opr i ately and als o testi fi ed that s he w as r epr i manded b y Wi lli ams forw ear ing shor ts to the offi ce on one occasi on. S wy ear testi fi ed that P or ter w as pr esent when m any of the abov e-descr ibed in appr opr i ate conv er sati ons took place, b ut
w as not sur e whether he actually hear d them. P or ter testi fi ed that h e w as a w ar e of the offensi v e ni cknames, and may hav e used them on occasi on, but co u l d not r ecall any speci fi c instances in whi ch he di d. Swy ear di d n ot tell any one she w as offended by the abov e-descr ibed in ci den t s , nor di d she make any for mal or infor mal c omplaints. S wy ear d i d tell Wi l l ia m s that the env i r onment w as not ov er ly sexuali ze d , b u t i t w as aggr essiv e, di sr espectful, and r u de, and she a lso r elated her

sur pr i se at the di sr espect the employ e e s dir ected at Wi lli ams hi mself. On July 15, 2015, S wy ear met Russell S cott at a county fai r
near East Moli ne, Illi noi s. The tw o w alked thr ough the fai r together to meet wit h c ustomer s. One customer asked what they h a d planned forthe day . S cott r esponded that they w er e getti ng a hotel r oom. When the customer r esponded i t w as
none of hi s busin ess, i mplying he under stood the statement to6 No. 18-2108

mean S cott a n d S wy ear planned on shar ing a r oom, S wy ear i mmedi ately poi nted out they w ould be stayi ng in separ ate
r ooms. After complet ing thei r w or k at the fai r , S wy ear sought per mi ssi on fr om Wi lli ams to mov e tow ar d her nex t l ocati on, but Wi lli am s told S wy ear to stay w i th S cott to r ecei v e a ddi

ti onal tr aining. S o the tw o made t h e i r w ay to a hotel in Bentonv i lle, Iow a, and after checkin g in, dis c o v er ed thei r
r ooms w er e adj acent to one another

. S cott follow ed S wy ear into her room clai ming he w anted to check the ai r condi ti oner because the r oom w as w ar m. T o av oi d spending t i me wi th S cott in her room, S wy ear suggested they head t o dinner
. On the w ay to dinner Scott began acti n g i n a w ay that i m pli ed he beli ev ed the tw o w er e on a date—touchi ng Swy ear ’s ar m, pu l lin g her chai r out for her to si t, placing hi s hand on her low er back, standing i n close pr oxi mi ty . S cott had thr ee beer s dur in g dinner and told S wy ear sev er al ti mes that he w as single. Accor din g to S wy ear , S cott also became unsteady on hi s feet and began slur r ing hi s w or d s as a r esult of the dr inks. A fter dinner the tw o took a s elf-gui ded tour of the h o t e l

. When they w alked by the pool S cott su ggested they go for a swi m
. When S wy ear stated that she di d not br ing a swi msui t, S cott r esponded b y i mplying they could go skinny di pping
. S wy ear declined thi s offer

. On the w ay b a ck to their r o o m s , S cott a g a in t ouched S wy ear ’s back whi ch m ade her uncomfor table. Upon a rr i ving at thei r r ooms S c ott made hi s w ay into S wy ear ’s r oom. S cott cr awled in to S w y ear ’ s bed and told her he li ked to w atch mov i es and cuddle. S cott suggested S wy ear needed a “ c u ddle buddy” and that they could shar e a bed. S wy ear declined a nd told hi m she w as ti red and w anted to goNo. 18-2108 7

to bed. S c ott left, but r etur ned and knocked on S wy ear ’s door multi ple ti m e s
. T

o av oi d fur ther contact w i th Scott, S wy ear pr etended to be in the show er
. S c ott th en c alled S wy ear , b ut she deci ded not to a nswer
. S wy ear answer ed a s ubsequent call fr om S c ott and he asked what s he w as doi ng. S he r esp o n de d that she had taken a show er and w as planning on goi ng to bed. S cott indi cated he w ould meet S wy e a r f o r b r eakfast the next
mor ning and ma k e sur e she w as okay , and then began mumbling incoher ently

. S cott called S wy ear the next mor ning fr om the r oad and clai med he knocked on her d o o r to s ee i f s he

w ould dr i v e hi m to W

almar t because he w a s too in toxi cated to dr i v e h imself. The abov e-descr i b ed inter acti ons wi th S cott offended S wy ear and made her uncomfor table, but s he alw a ys felt i n contr ol of the si tuati on. On July 23, 2 015, S wy ear met wi th Wi lli ams a nd H ar sy for

a per f or mance r ev i ew

. Dur ing the r ev i ew they di scussed h ow S w y e ar could i mpr ov e her per for mance and r emedy her tar diness i s sues. Ap p r o xi mately thi r ty minutes after thi s meeti ng S wy ear repor ted to Har sy what h appened betw een her and S cott on July 15. H a r s y inv esti gated the inci dent, calling S cott who confi r med most of the detai l s. After speaking wi th S c ott, Har sy met wi th Por ter and Wi lli a ms and they deci ded no di sci plin e w as w a r r anted, a lthough they di d deci de to keep S cott and S w y ear separ a ted fr om then on. Up to thi s poi nt of her employment, Swy ear had spent
r oughly half of her ti me in the Du Quoi n offi ce and half on the

r oad. After r epor ti ng the inci dent, how ev er , S wy ear spent almost all of h er ti me in the offi ce. S wy ear a l so asser ts that after repor ti ng the inci dent her inter acti ons w i th P or ter ceased. S wy ear c lai ms s he and Wi lli ams di scussed plans for her to go8 No. 18-2108

on the r oad on sev er al occas io n s , but that Wi lli ams in di cated he needed appr ov al fr om P or ter and nev er pr ov i ded her wi th any fur ther infor mati on. Har sy and Wi lli ams held a sec o n d per f or mance m eeti ng wi th S wy ear on August 3, 2015. D ur ing thi s meet in g t h ey gav e S wy ear 30 days to i mpr ov e her per for mance. A detai led di scussi on r egar ding h er per for mance follow ed and Wi lli ams
r ei ter ated S w y ear must follow the schedule she w as gi v en and di scussed her conti nuing p u nctuali ty i ssues. Wi lli ams also infor m ed S wy ear that she may only use company v ehi cles for

w or k-r elated acti v i ti es and nev er for per sonal use. Despi te thi s
w ar ning, Swy ear d r o v e a company v ehi cle home a fter the

me e t ing. Wi lli ams called S wy ear and asked her i f she u nder

stood thi s w as an im p e r m i ssi ble u se as outli ned in thei r
conv er sati on. S w y ear i mmedi ately r etur ned the v ehi cle to Far e Foods. On August 6, 2 015, Far e Foods ter minated S wy ear
. S wy ear fi led a c ompla in t in feder a l di str i ct cour t allegi ng sexual di scr i min ati on, sexual har assment, and r etali ati on in v i olati on of Ti tle VII, 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq ., and br each o f c o n t r act. Both par ti es mov ed for summary j udgment and the di s tr i ct
c o u r t g r anted Far e Foods’ moti on a nd d eni ed S wye a r ’ s m o ti o n
. S wy ear ’s ti mely appeal asser ts the dis tr i ct cour t w as wr ong
r egar ding e a ch c lai m. Because w e di sagr ee, w e a ffi r m the deci si on of the di str i ct cour t. II. ANAL

YSIS Our r ev i ew of a di str i ct cour t’s gr ant of summary j udgment i s de novo and all r easona b l e in fer ences ar e dr awn in fav or of the nonmov ant. V

alenti v
. L awson , 889 F .3d 427, 429 (7th Ci r
.No. 18-2108 9 2018). The oper ati v e inqui r y i s whether the m ov a nt has shown ther e i s no g e n uine di spute as to any mater i al fact a nd the

mov ant i s enti tled to a fav or able j udgment as a matter of law

. Fed. R. Ci v

. P . 56(a). A. Sexual Harassment
A sexual har assment clai m under Ti tle VII r equi r es S wy ear show: ( 1) her w or k env i r onment w as obj ecti v ely and subj ecti v ely offensi v e, (2) the h ar assment s h e complain ed of w as based on her gender

, (3) the conduct w as s o se v e r e or per v a si v e a s to alt e r the condi ti ons of employment and cr eate a hosti le or abusiv e w or ki ng env i ronment, and ( 4 ) ther e i s a basi s for employ er li abi l it y

. Johnson v
. Advocate Health and Hosps. Corp. , 892 F .3d 887, 900 (7th Ci r
. 2018); Scruggs v
. Garst Seed Co. , 587 F .3d 832, 840 (7th Ci r
. 2009). 3 A success fu l hosti l e w or k

env i r onment clai m bas e d o n s exual har assment need not inv olv e sexual conduct, b ut can be successful by showing the

w or k env i r onment w as sexi st. Scruggs , 587 F .3d at 840 (7th Ci r
. 2009)

. Thus, thi s Cour t has held that a showing of “anti -female ani mus” i s suffi c i ent to pr ev ai lin a hosti le w or k env i r onment clai m
. Id

. Thi s showing must sti ll include ev i d ence that the env i ronment w as “ sev er e or per v asi v e”and r equi res pr oof of both an obj ecti v e and subj ecti v e component. Lapka v
. Chertoff , 517 F .3d

3 It must b e no ted, a s thi s Co urt ha s prev i o usl y, tha t t h e p h r a s e o l o gy o f thi s test o ften o sc i l l a t es b etween mul t i pl e itera ti o ns, ho wev er, these di fferences a re wi tho u t d isti ncti o n
. Joh nson v
. Ad vocate Health & Hosp s. Corp

. , 8 9 2 F.3 d 8 8 7, 9 0 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 1 8 ) (“ S o meti mes o ur ca ses phra se the test di fferentl y ... [i ]n the end we ha v e co ncl uded the i nqui ry i s the sa me.” ).10 No. 18-2108 974, 983 (7th Ci r
. 2008). Her e, S wy ear testi fi e d s h e found the

env i r onment a t Far e Foods to be sexi st and offensi v e establi shing the subj ecti v e p r ong. But to deter mine whether a p ar ti cular

w or k env i ronment i s obj ecti v ely offensi v e, w e must consi der the sev er i ty of the conduct, i ts fr equency , whether i t i s mer ely offensi v e as opposed to physi cally thr eateni ng or humi li ati ng, and whether i t unr easonably inter fe r ed wi th an employ ee’s

w or k per for mance. Robinson v
. Perales , 894 F .3d 818, 8 2 8 (7th Ci r . 2018). T o establi sh the s tandar d plainti ff w as requi r ed to meet the di str i ct cour t stated “ it has been long establi shed that the concept of sexua l h a r assment i s desi gned to pr otect w omen fr om the ki nd of male attenti ons that can make the w or kplace helli sh forw omen.” Whi le “helli s h” w as once the standar d, i t i s no longer

. “ The Supr eme Cour t s ta nd a r d di ctates that the di scr i min ati on j ust be only so sev er e or per v asi v e so as to affect t he ter ms and condi ti ons of employment.

. . . Thi s i s a f a r c r y fr om helli sh.” Johnson , 892 F .3d a t 9 0 1 (ci ting Harris v
. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S . 17, 21–22 (1993)). In maki ng thi s deter min ati on w e l ook to the totali ty of the ci r cumstance and ask whether ev er ythi ng together consti tutes
a hosti l e or abusiv e env i r onment. See Harris v
. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 5 10 U.S

. 17, 23 (1993) (“[W]e can say that whether an
env i r onment i s ‘hosti le’ or ‘abusi v e’ can b e deter mined only b y looki ng a t all of the ci r cumstances”). W e also assume employees ar e gen er ally matur e indi vi duals wi th the thi ck skin that

comes fr om li v in g in the moder n w or ld. Passananti v
. Cook Cty

. , 6 8 9 F

. 3d 655, 667 (7th Ci r
. 2012). As a r esult, employ e r s gener ally do not f ace li abi li ty for off-color comments, i solatedNo. 18-2108 11
inci d ents, teasing, and other unpleasantr i es that ar e, unfor tunately , not uncommon inthe w or kplace. Id. S wy ear ar gues the env i r onment at Far e Foods, as a whole,

w as per meated wi th sexi sm suffi ci entl y sev er e and per v a si v e to cr eate an abusiv e w or k env i r onment. Although w e r ecogni ze the env i r onment at Far e Foods w as at ti mes inappr opr i ate and offensiv e, w e do not beli ev e S wy ear has met thi s hi gh bar

. Thi s Cour t has held that “occasi onal v ulgar b anter , ti nged wi th sexual innuendo of coar se or b oor i sh w or ker s gener a lly does not cr eate a w or k env i r onment that a r easonable per s on w ould find in toler able.” Hilt-Dyson v
. City of Chicago , 282 F .3d 456, 463 (7th Ci r
. 2002). Th e v ulgar ni cknames a n d the di scussi ons of Russell S cott’s romanti c l if e f all into thi s categor y
. The n i cknames wer e not d i r ected tow ar ds S wy ear , nor wer e they used t o p hysi c a lly thr eaten or humi li ate her

. Rather , they w er e
cr ude and i mmatur e j okes that typi cally do not r esult in employ er li abi li ty

. Addi ti onally

, the di scussi ons of Russell S cott’s r omanti c
r elati o ns h ip s w er e inappr opr i a te and in poor taste, but they also lacked sev er i ty and w er e in fr equent. When asked h ow often these di s cussi ons took place S wy ear r es p o nded, “I

w ouldn’t know that I w o ul d s a y a t least once a w eek, but i t seemed li ke an ongoi ng j oke.” Fur ther mor e, no one ev er di scussed the topi c wi th S wy ear di r ectly , she mer ely ov er h ear d other employ ees j ok in g about i t. Thi s mi li tates a finding that t h e c onv er sati ons w er e “mer ely offensi v e,” as opposed to physi cally thr eateni ng or h umi li ati n g to S wy ear
. In fact, S wy ear stated that she di d no t f e e l di sr espected her self, b ut
w as tr oubled by the di sr espect the employ ees show ed to each12 No. 18-2108
other : “ the a l l ov er di sr espect I felt on behalf of ev er y one tow ar ds each other w as a li ttle di stasteful and r ude.” The same goes for the ni cknames. S wy ear w as n ot gi v en an offensi v e ni ckname her sel f , but mer ely hear d people using them whi le she w as in ear shot. Thi s Ci r cui t has aptly poi nted out, “The Amer i can w or kplace w ould be a seethin g c auldr on i f w or ker s could wi th i mpuni ty pe p p e r thei r employ er and

ev entually the EEOC and the cour ts w i th complaints of being offended by remar ks and behav i or s u nr elated to the c omplainant except for h i s hav ing ov er h ear d, or hear d of, them.” Y uknis

v. First Student, Inc. , 481 F .3d 552, 556 (7th Ci r . 2007). Nor does the addi ti on of S wy ear ’s inter acti on wi th Russell S cott on July 15 , 2 0 15, necessi tate a findin g that the env i ronment at Far e Foods w as hosti le or abusiv e. In Ho s tetler , thi s Cour t di scussed th e d i ffi cult line dr a wing thi s inqui r y requi r es: Cumulati v ely or in c o nj uncti on wi th other har assment, such acts mi ght b ecome suffi ci ently per v asi v e to suppor t a hosti le env i r onment clai m, but i f few and farbetw een they typi c ally wi ll not be sev er e enough to be acti onable in and of themselv es. A hand on the shoulder , a br i ef hug, or a peck on the cheek li e at thi s end of the spectr um. Ev en mor e in ti mate or mor e cr ude physi cal acts—a hand on the thi gh, a ki s s on the li ps, a pin ch of the buttocks—may be c onsi der ed insuffi ci ently abusiv e to be descr ibed a s “sev er e” when they occurin i solati on. 218 F .3d at 808. The inci dent wi th Scott r ef l e c t e d enti r ely inappr opr i ate behav i or by a cow or ker , b ut does not c onsti tuteNo. 18-2108 13
sexual har assment alone or when consi d er ed wi th the abov edescr ibed inci dents. S cot t ’ s a c ti ons w er e n ot sev er e as c ompar ed w i th acts thi s Cour t h a s f ound suffi ci ent to cr eate a hostil e o r abusiv e w or k env i r onment. See e.g., Hostetler , 218 F .3d at 809 (plain t i ff’s cow or ker held her face in hi s h ands, for ced hi s tongue into her mouth and when she used her body to shi eld her self h e began to unfasten he r b r a , s toppi ng only when another employ ee enter ed the offi ce); Smith v
. S h e a h an , 189 F .3d 529, 532 (7th Ci r
. 199 9 ) (a c ow or ker physi cally assaulted the plain t if f and had a hi stor y of v erbally abusing female cow or ker s). Her e, S cott’s ac t i ons w er e much less thr eateni ng and sev er e—i n par ti cular , none of hi s acti ons w er e f o rceful a nd Swy ear testi fi ed that s he alw ays felt she w a s i n contr ol of the si tu a t ion. Cf. Hilt–Dyson , 282 F .3d at 463–64 (plainti ff's a llegati ons that a s uper v i sor r ubbed h e r back, squeezed her s houlder a nd star ed at her chest dur in g a uni f or m inspecti on whi le telli ng her to r ai se her ar ms and open her bla z e r w er e i solated inci dents that, ev en when taken together, d i d not cr eate a hosti le w or k env i ronment); Patt v
. Family Health Sys., Inc. , 280 F .3d 749, 754 (7th Ci r .2002) (plainti ff's c omplain ts of ei ght gender -r elate d c omments dur ing
cour se of her employment, including that “the o n l y v a l uable thi n g t o a w o m an i s that she has br easts and a v a gi na,” w as insuffi c i ent to demonstr ate a hosti le w or k env i r onment). S cott
cer tainly cr ossed far b e y o nd the line of acceptable w or kplace eti quette, but h i s a cti ons w er e not as offensi v e as thi s Cour t has

r equi r ed to consti tute a hosti le or abusiv e w or k env i r onment. Addi ti ona l ly

, S cott’s inappr opr i ate acti ons happened only once, w er e not par t of a patt e r n o f har assment, and w er e i mmedi ately and suffi ci ently r esponded to by Far e Foods.14 No. 18-2108
S wy ear a lso fai led to show the env i r onment a t Far e Foods inter fer ed w it h h e r abi li ty to do her j ob. T o the contr ar y

, S wy ear testi fi ed the main i mpedi ment to her job per for mance
w as confli c ti ng di r ecti v es: I h a d to be honest that fr om the v er y begi nning that something w as off and I di dn’t—y ou know , I w as getti ng di r ecti on fr om so many di ffer e nt people that w as confli cting a nd

... I’m getti ng, y ou know

, not p uni shed, but talked to abou t something that the other per son w ould say i t
w as okay

. It w as j ust v er y c onfusing and I don’t ... li ke the chaos. Accor dingly

, b ecause w e find that the env i r onment at Far e Foods as a whole w as not suffi ci ently sev er e or per v a siv e t o consti tute a h o sti le w or k env i r onment, and because S wy ear fai led to put for th ev i dence showing i t adv er sely affected her j ob per for m ance, w e affi r m the deci s i on of the d i s tr i ct cour t to gr ant summar y j udgment in fav or of Far e Foods. B. Sexual Discrimination
Ti tle VII makes i t unlawful for an employ er to di schar ge an employ ee b ecause of that per son’s sex. T o s ucceed on a sexual di scr i min ati on clai m, a plainti ff must establi sh (1) s h e is a member of a pr otected c lass, (2) she w as meeti ng the legi ti m ate per for mance expectati ons of h er employ er , (3) she suffer ed an adv er se employment a cti on, and (4) a nother si mi lar l y si tuated in d iv i dual not in the pr otected class w as tr eated mor e fai r ly

. Coleman v
. Donah o e , 6 6 7 F .3d 835, 8 4 5 ( 7th Ci r
. 2 012). The par ti es hav e not fr amed thei r ar guments u sing the McDonnell D o uglas bur den shi fti ng fr amew or k, but rather hav e si mp l yNo. 18-2108 15
di sputed whether suffi ci ent e v id e nce h as been pr oduced to
s u p por t a j u r y v er di ct. Followi ng Ortiz v
. W erner Enterpris e s , Inc. , 834 F .3d 760, 764 (7th Ci r
. 2 016), thi s Cour t had made clear that “ McDonnell Douglas i s n ot the only w a y to assess ci r cumstanti al e v id ence of di scr i minati on.” David v
. Bd. o f T rustees of Cmty

. Coll. Dist. No. 508 , 846 F .3d 216, 224 (7th Ci r
. 2017). Wi thout the McDonnell Douglas fr amew or k the que s t io n i s a fa m il iar one: “has the n on-mov ing p ar ty pr oduced s uffi ci ent
ev i dence to su ppor t a j ur y v er di ct of in tenti onal di s c r i m inati on?” Id. The p ar ti es agr ee that S wy ear i s a member of a pr otected class (a w oman) a n d that she s u ffer ed an adv er se employment acti on (being fi r ed). The par ti es di spute, how ev er , whether S wy ea r w as meeti ng Far e Foods’ l egi ti mate per for mance expectati ons and whether S wy ear has p r oduced ev i dence that another s i mi lar l y si tuated indi v i dual that w as not a m ember of the pr otected class w as tr eated mor e fav or abl y
. B ecause w e agr ee wi th Far e Foods on the for m er i s s ue, w e wi ll not di scuss the latter

. Far e Foods attached to thei r summary j udgment moti on an exhibi t detai ling S wy ear ’s per for mance i ssues. 4 Far e Foods documented that S wy ear w as late on a par ti cular day ear ly in her employment causing deli v er i es to be backed up for her and

a cow or ker

. On another occa s i o n , Wi lli ams n oti c ed S w y ear w as

4 S o me o f the da tes a ppea r to be i n c o r r e c t i n th is do cument fo r so me
a ctua l ly preda t e S wyea r’s hi re da te.16 No. 18-2108
sti ll at a hotel at 1 2 :30 p.m. 5 and called S wy ear to inqui r e as to why s he w as not following the r oute desi gned for her to meet spec i fi c customer s, an i ssue that w ould b e a c ommon one dur in g S wye a r ’s ti me at Far e Foods. Wi lli ams wr ote, “ [S w y ear ] needs to under stand w e h av e a pr ocess and when the r oute i s set up i t needs to be follo w ed as set up.” On July 1 4, S wy ear
w as deli v er ing fr ozen goods to a customer when she deci ded to stop at her home befor e completing the deli v er y—thi s m ade the deli v er y late. On the s ame day S w y ear , after s eeki ng per mi ssi on, m et h e r mother at a show in Cr escent Ci ty , Iow a. H o w e v e r

, the following w or k day S wy ear stay ed ther e unti l 2 : 0 0 p.m., agai n fai ling to f ollow the r oute set up by F a r e Foods. On July 27, Swy ear w as i s sued a ti cket for being on her cell phone whi le dr i v ing. S wy ear w as in her per s onal v ehi cle, but Wi lli ams w as concer ned the ti cket w ould adv er sely affect Far e Foods insur ance and asked S wy ear to take c ar e of i t. On July 30, Wi lli ams set up a plan for Swy ear to v i si t customer s in tw o locati ons, one in S alem, Illin o i s , and the other in Gr eenv i lle, Illinoi s. When Wi lli ams checked in wi th S wy ear a t 9:30 a.m. she w as not on the r oad, ev en though s he w as expected to b e w or ki ng by 8:00 a .m. Wi lli ams checked her locati on a t 10:20 a.m. and di scov er ed that s he w as in Bellev i lle, Illi noi s, whi ch w a s in the opposi te di r ecti on fr om the agr eed

u p on locati ons. S w y ear di d not ar r i v e to one of the locati on s set up by Far e Foods unti l 2:00 p.m.

5 Fa re Fo o ds equ i pped the co mpa ny v a ns wi th dev ices so they were ab l e to mo ni to r the m ov ement o f the o utsi de sa l es representa ti v es, whi ch is ho w Wi l l ia ms wa s ab l e to determi ne S wyea r’s l o ca ti o n a t a ny gi v en ti me.No. 18-2108 17
Fur ther mor e, as descr ibed ab ov e, S wy ear h ad per for mance
ev aluati ons conducted by Wi lli ams a nd Har sy on July 23, 2015, and August 3, 2015. Dur ing the July 23, 2015, meeti n g they d i scussed how Swy ear could i mpr ov e he r p e r fo r m a n c e a n d he r t a r d iness i ssues. The August 3 r ev i ew also addr essed th e s e
same i ssues and r e s u l t e d in S wy ear being gi v en 30 days to i m p r o v e her per for m ance. Fur ther mor e, d i r e c t ly a ft e r Wi l l i a m s infor m ed S wy ear that she could only use company v ehi c les for

w or k-r elated acti v i ti es, S wy ear dr ov e a company v an home. These i ssues taken together ar e conv incing ev i den ce that S wy ear w as not meeti ng Far e Foods’ legi ti mate expectati ons. S wy ear adv ances sev er a l ar guments to r ebut thi s ev i d ence,
none of whi ch di spute the v er aci ty o f the abov e-descr ibed inci d ents. Fi r st, S wy ear ar gues Far e Foods changed S wy e ar fr om an outsi de sales r epr esentati v e to a n insi de s a le s r epr esentati v e following the inci dent wi th S cott, thus changing Far e Foods’ expectati ons in her per for mance wi thout her knowi ng. S wy ear effectiv ely asser ts thi s secr et change in expectati ons
r esulted in i l legi ti m ate expectati ons, ther eby excusing her fai lur e to pr ov e the “legi t i mate per f or mance expectati ons” pr ong of the sexual di scr i minati on test. How ev er , S wy ear does not show any instances in whi ch she w as held to the standar d of an out si de s ales r epr esentati v e whi le she w as supposed to be per f or min g the fu n cti ons of an insi de sales r epr esentati v e,
n or does s he poi nt to any ev i dence that the confusi on ov er S wy ear ’s r ole l ed to her not meet i n g F a r e Foods’ legi ti m ate expectati ons. Most of the a bov e-descr ibed inci d ents ar e exampl e s o f S wy ear fai ling to meet Far e Foods’ expectati ons whi le she w as undeni ably an outsi de sales r epr esentati v e. Thus, S wy ear has n ot demonstr ated that her fai lur e to f ollow18 No. 18-2108
di r ecti v es or her fr equent tar d in ess w er e a r esult of confusi on as to whi ch posi ti on she held. S wy ear also clai ms “thi s Cour t’s jur i spr u d e nce allows the pla in t iff to challenge the basi s of her adv er se acti ons as the

cour t need not accept the employ er at i ts w or d.” T r ue enough, but S wy ear has not poi nted to a ny ev i dence in the r ecor d that i mpli es Far e Foods’ r easons for fi ring her w er e pr etextual, nor has s h e poi nted to any ev i dence that i mpli es the r eal r eason s he

w as f ir e d w as due to her sex. The fact that S w y ear has not pr oduced any ev i den c e that she w as meeti n g Far e Foods’ legi ti mate expectati ons or that the r easons Far e Foods gav e for fi r ing her w er e p r etextual ar e fatal to her sexual di scr i minati on clai m
. Accor dingly

, w e affi r m the di str i ct cour t’s di smi ssal of thi s clai m. C. Retaliation S wy ear ’s retali ati on clai m meets the same f ate as h er sexual di scr i min ati on clai m for m a n y o f the s ame r easons. T i tle VII forbi ds employ er s fr om r etali ati ng agai nst employ ees for engagi n g in statutor i l y p r otected acti v i ti es by opposi ng an unlawful employment pr acti ces or par ti ci pati n g in the inv esti

gati on of one. 42 U.S .C. § 2 0 0 0 e

– 3 (a); see also Lord v
. High V oltage S o f t w a re, Inc. , 839 F .3d 556, 563 (7th Ci r
. 2016). T o deter mine whether S wy ear ’s r etali ati on clai m should sur v i v e
su mmar y j udgment, w e ask whether the ev i dence pr oduced

w ould p e r m i t a r easonable factfinder to conclude the plainti ff’s

sex c a used the di schar ge. Ortiz v
. W erner Enters., Inc. , 834 F .3d 760, 765 (7th Ci r . 2016). Ther e ar e tw o w a ys of pr ov ing a primafacie retali ati on clai m
a n d e ach r equi r es pr ov ing di ffer ent elements. A plain ti ffNo. 18-2108 19 opti ng for the “di rect” method must pr esent ev i dence that (1) s he engaged in a pr ot ected acti v i ty , (2) she suffer ed an adv er se acti on, and (3) a c ausal connecti on exi sts betw een the tw o. Sitar v
. Ind. Dep’t of T ransp. , 344 F .3d 7 2 0 , 7 2 8 ( 7 th Ci r
. 2003). The “indi r ect” method, as the name i m p li es, allows the p l a inti ff to establi sh a prima facie case wi thout establi shin g a causal link. Thi s method r equi r es a p l a i n t if f show (1) s he engaged in a pr otected acti v i ty , (2) she per for med her job duti es acc o r ding to her employ er ’s l egi ti mate expectati ons, (3) she s uffer ed an adv er s e acti on, and (4) she w as tr eated less fav or ably than si mi lar ly s i tuated e m pl o y ees who di d not engage in the pr otected acti vi ty

. Id

. The in di r ect method falls under the auspi ces o f the McDonnell Douglas bur den-shi fti ng fr amew or k. McD o nnell Douglas Corp. v
. Green , 411 U.S

. 792 (1973). Under thi s fr amew or k, i f a plainti ff i s able to establi sh

a prima facie case, the bur den shi fts to the employ er to pr ov i de

a l egi ti mate, non-di scr i minator y r eason for the adv er se acti on. Khowaja v
. Sessions , 893 F .3d 1010, 1015 (7th Ci r
. 2018). Then to p r e v a i l, S wy ear must p r esent ev i d ence that the r easons pr offer ed by Far e Foods ar e pr etextual. Id. As w as di s cussed in mor e detai l abov e, S wy ear can poi n t to
no ev i dence t hat she w as meeti ng the legi ti m ate expectati ons
o f F a r e Foods, nor has she pr oduced any ev i dence that indi

cates the r easons Far e Foods fi r ed her a r e pr etext. As a r esult, her r etali a t i o n c l a i m i s fatally d efi ci ent and summary j udgment

w as appr opr i ate.20 No. 18-2108
D. Breach of Contract
Fi nally , S wy ear ar gues F a r e F oods i s li able for br each of contr act under Illi noi s law

. An employment agr eement si gned by an at-wi ll employ ee c a n cr eate v ali d and enfor ceable contr actual r i ghts i f the t r a di ti onal r equi r ements for contr act for mati on exi st. Duldulao v
. St. Mary of Nazar eth Hosp. Ctr

. , 505 N.E.2d 314, 318 (Ill. 1987). Under Illi noi s law exi sts a pr esumpti on that an indi v i dual hi r ed wi thout a fi xed ter m i s an at-wi ll employ ee, whi ch can b e ov er come by demonstr ati n g the par ti es c o n t r acted other w i se. Id. That “ other wi s e” r equi r es a plainti ff show: (1) the poli cy contai ned a p r o m is e of such clar i ty that a n employ ee w ould r easonably beli ev e an offer has be e n m a d e, (2) the statement w as di sseminated to the employ ee in a manner that makes the employ ee aw ar e of i ts content and r easonably beli ev e i t w a s a n offer , and (3) the employ ee accepted the offer by commencin g or conti nuing to
w or k after lear nin g of the poli cy
. Id. S w y ear ar gues Far e Foods br eached her employment agr eement b y r eassi gni ng her to the posi ti on of insi de sales

r epr esentati v e, by fai ling to pr ov i de her wi th a company cr edi t
car d , and by taki ng her company v ehi cle. In what S w y ear pur p o r t s to be the par ti es’ employment agr eement, although i t i s not si gned by ei ther par ty or dated, the afor ementi oned benefi ts ar e c ontemplated. The fi r st pag e o f the agr eement states that S w y ear wi ll w or k as an outsi de s ales r epr esentati v e. The se co n d stated she w ould be pr ov i ded wi th a c ompany
cr edi t car d and company v ehi c le. The par ti es do not di spute that S wy ear has sati sfi ed the test in Duldulao , although S wy ear poi nts to no case law fin dingNo. 18-2108 21

contr actual ri ghts in si mi lar employment p r ov i si ons n or di d the Cour t find any in i ts independent r e s e a r c h. Nev er theless, the Cour t need not deci de th a t i ssue because ev en i f S wy ear sati s fi ed Duldulao , that w ould only establi sh that the r elati onshi p at i ssue i s not mer ely at-wi l l. Under Illi noi s law

, to pr ev a i l on a br each of contr act clai m the plain ti ff must show: (1) the e x is t e nce of a v ali d and enfor ceable contr act, (2) she substanti ally per for me d the contr act, ( 3) the defendant br eached that contr act, and (4) damages r esulted fr om the alleged br each of contr act. Reger Dev ., LLC v
. Nat’ l City Bank , 5 92 F .3d 759, 764 (7th Ci r
. 2 010) (ci ti ng W

.W

. V incent & Co. v
. First C ol o n y Life Ins. Co. , 814 N.E.2d 960, 967 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)). Appellants s p e n d about tw o pages di scussing the br each of contr act i s sue, a nd most of i t w as d ev oted to di scussi ng why the employment w as n ot atwi ll. Thus, the Cour t w as gi v en no gui dance as t o how the appellants w ould be able to pr ov e br each or damages. It i s unclear her e how appellant w ould pr ov e damages for Far e Foods’ fai lur e to pr ov i de S wy ear wit h a company cr edi t
car d dur ing her employment. Nor i s i t r eadi ly appar ent h ow S w y ear w ould show her r eassi gnment r esulted in dama g e s
. S he w as nev er offi ci ally r eassi gned, but mer ely ceased tr av eling after the inci dent. Her salar y w as not changed and i t appear ed many of her duti es in the offi ce w er e the same. Fi nally , appellants d o no t e xplai n how Far e Foods br eached the par t of the agr eement t h a t S wy ear w ould be pr ov i ded wi th a company v ehi cle. The r ecor d i s r e p lete wi th instances of S wy ear us in g a company v ehi cle. Far e Foods d i d r equi r e S wy ear to only u ti li ze a company v an for employment-r elated acti v i ti es, but at no ti me di d Far e Foods forbid S wy ear fr om22 No. 18-2108
using i t. Because Swy ear f ai led to dev elop these i ssues at all in her br i efs, despi te the fact that Far e Foods’ m a in ar gument in thei r b r i ef w as that S wy ear had not all eged damages, she has

w ai v ed the i ssue. See Echo, Inc. v
. T i m berland Machines & Irrigation, Inc. , 661 F .3d 959, 967 (7th Ci r
. 2011) (thr ee sentence
ar gument that fai led to explai n how the c ontr act w as br eached

w as “too skeletal, and amounted to w ai v er ”).

III

. CONCLUSION Because w e find the env i ronment at Far e Foods as a whole

w as not suffi ci ently sev er e or per v asi v e to consti tute a hosti le

w or k env ir o nment, w e affi r m the di str i ct cour t. Fur ther , because Far e Foods set for th numer ous legi ti mate r easons for ter minati on th a t S wy ear f ai led to rebut wi th ev i dence, the di str i ct cour t w as cor r ect in gr anti n g summar y j udgment in fav or of Far e Foods for S wy ear ’s sexual di scr i mina t ion and

r etali a ti on clai ms. Fi nally , because Swy e a r f ai led to establi sh the elements of br each of co n tr act, s ummar y judgment w as appr opr i ate for thi s clai m as well. AFFIRMED.