### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 16-3661
J O S E P H L. R E E D, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

F RE E D OM M OR

T GA G E C ORP OR

AT I ON , Defendant-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, Ea stern Di v i s i o n. No . 1 :1 5-cv -0 0 9 5 4 — Ja me s B. Za ge l , Judg e.

A RGU E D A PRI L 12, 2017

— D E C I D E D A UGUS T 2 5, 2017

Befor e P O S N E R

, R OVN E R

, and W I L L I AM S

, Circuit Judges

. R OVN E R , Cir cuit Judge. Joseph L. Ree d s ue d hi s for mer employ er

, Fr eedom Mor t g age Company , under the Illi noi s Human Ri ghts Act, allegi n g r ace-based di scr i minati on. After concluding that Reed lacked ev i d ence of r aci al bi as, the di s tr i ct
cour t gr anted summary j udgment in f av or of Fr eedom Mor tg a ge. Reed challenges the cour t’s deci s i ons on ev i dentia r y2 No. 16-3661

matter s as w ell as the c our t’s ulti mate c onclusi on on summary j udgment. W

e affi r m
. I.
Fr eedom Mor tgage i s a f ull s er v i ce r esi denti al mor tgage lender based in New Jer s ey , wi th offi c es a r ound the countr y
. Reed and co-w or ker Feli ci a Bates ini ti a lly came to w or k for the company as tempor ar y employ ees fr om a staffing agency
. On Nov ember 1, 2012, Fr eedom Mor tgage hi r ed Reed and Bates as full-ti me Br oker Li ai sons at i ts D owner s Gr o v e , I l linoi s offi ce at the r ecommendati on of Regi onal Oper ati ons Manager Cher yl Bi dstr up. Reed and Bates r epor ted di r ectly to Bi dstr u p who, in tur n, r epor ted to the Regi onal Br anch Manager , Vi cki e S per r y
. Reed and Bates ar e Afr i c an-Amer i can and both Bi dstr u p and S p er r y ar e whi te. The r egular hour s of oper ati on for the Downe r s Gr ov e offi ce w er e 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., although s ome employ ees w or ked other schedules w i th the per m i ssi on of s eni o r m a nagement. Other employ ees w or k e d a d i ffer ent schedule in or der to
a c c o m m o d a t e a c c o un t s in o th e r ti me zones. Fr eedom Mo r t g a g e had a n employ ee handbook that contai ned the c omp any’s offi ci a l Attendance P oli cy , whi ch stated that sev en or m o r e absences, l ate ar r i v als, or ear ly de p a r t u r es in a tw elv e month per i od could tr i gger di s ci plinar y acti on, including ter minati on of employment. Reed under stood that he w a s expected to star t
w or k at 8 a.m. each day

. He assumed that hi s co-w or ker s w er e all on the s ame schedule but he admi tted that other employ ees may h av e had per mi ssi on to w or k alter nate schedules of whi ch he w as not aw ar e.No. 16-3661 3
On Januar y 21, 2 013, Bi dstr up sent an emai l to the tw entynine employ ees who r epor ted di r ectly to her : Vi cki e a n d I pr i de our selv es on being flexible wi th

our staff a nd in maki ng the Chi cago b r anch a pleasant place to w or k. Unfor tunately , how ev er

, our good natur ed di sposi ti ons wi th r egar d to the offi ce atmospher e hav e b e en and a r e being taken adv antage of. Ther efor e, I find i t necessar y to r ei ter ate the following r equi r ements.

• Our w or k hour s ar e 8 :00 am to 5:00 pm in the Downer s G r ov e physi cal l ocati on wi th an h our for lunch and 2 - 15 minute br eaks. Any dev i ati on fr om these hour s or locati on mus t b e p r i or appr ov ed b y Vi cki e or me. Ther e wi ll be no fur ther “setti ng y our
own hour s” and assuming that y ou can stay unti l 6:00 pm to make up for coming i n at 9:00 am.

• If y ou ar e goi ng to b e a b sent or late, y ou must contact me pr i or to 8:00 am wi th the reason for y our absence or tar diness. If I a m unav ai lable, y our
v oi cemai l message wi ll be ti me stamped.

• The technical abi li ty t o w or k fr om h ome i s to be uti li zed for after -hour s w or k only and o n ly when

ne e ded. W

or ki ng fr om h ome d ur ing r egular busi

ness hour s must be pr i or a ppr ov ed by Vi cki e or me and wi ll only be appr ov ed in an extreme emer gency and i s at our di scr eti on. Ther e ar e only 3 Oper a ti ons’ employ ees who c u r r ently w or k r emotely on a
r egular basi s and hav e been alr eady appr ov ed to do4 No. 16-3661

so. No addi ti onal r emote w or ker s a r e being appr ov ed at thi s ti me. R. 50-17, A

T 2. Four d ays after s ending that emai l, Bi dstr up i ssued a v erb al

w ar ning to Reed for v i olati n g the Attendance P oli cy
. And four days after that, B i dstr up i ssued to Reed a wr i tten w ar ning for absenteei sm a nd/or ta r d in ess when he a r r i v ed at 9:30 a.m. wi thout noti fyi ng hi s manager in adv ance. Betw een Febr uar y 14, 2 013 and Apr i l 1, 2013, Reed w a s absent fr o m w o r k o n a t least ei ght d a y s a n d could n ot r ecall whether he had p r i or appr ov al. Betw een Mar ch 6 and Apr i l 10 of that same y ear , he clocked in late elev en ti mes, someti mes j ust a few minutes after 8:00 a .m., but mor e than a h a lf h our late on thr ee occasi ons. Bates also c o nceded that she had v i olated the Attendance P oli cy numer ous ti mes. Bi dstr u p ev entually infor med S per r y that Reed and Bates

w er e r epeatedly v i olati ng t h e Attendance P oli cy
. On Apr i l 9, 2013, Bi dstr up sent out a nother emai l to all of the Downer s Gr ov e employ ees remin ding t h em that excessiv e absences or tar diness could tr i gger di sci plinar y a cti on including ter m inati on of e m p l o yment. Because Reed conti nued to v i olate the Attendance Poli cy after r ecei v ing o r a l a nd wr i tten w ar nings, and b ecause she r ecei v ed c o mp l aints fr om tw o employ ees about hav ing to c ov er Reed’s w or k in hi s absence, Bi dstr u p asked the r ecepti oni st at the Downer s Gr ov e offi ce to moni tor Reed’s attendance. At s ome poi nt dur ing h i s s i x m onth tenur e, Reed appli ed for the posi ti on o f J u ni or Under wr i ter but w as not offer ed the j ob. Reed w as also denie d o ppor tuni ti es to
w or k fr om home.No. 16-3661 5
In 2013, a decline in business p r ompted manag e m e n t a t Fr eedom Mor tgage to i mplement a r educti on in for c e a t i ts locati ons acr oss the countr y
. At the Downer s Gr ov e br anch, the posi ti on of Br oker Li ai son w as gr adually eliminated thr ough multi ple r ounds of ter minati ons. Among the fi r st thr ee Br oker Li ai sons selected for ter min ati on at the Downer s Gr ov e br anch

w er e Reed and Bates. Bi dstr up and S per r y explained to s eni or management that they selected Reed and Bates b ecaus e o f thei r hi stor y of attendance and di sci plin ar y pr oblems, and because they h a d less seni or i ty than other s in the offi ce. In Apr i l 2013, after w or ki ng for the company for appr oxi mately si x m onths, Reed and Bates wer e t e r m in a t ed in the r educti on in for ce, along wi th a whi te employ e e. The remaining Br oker Li ai sons
w er e also ev entually ter m in a ted, and no one w as hi r ed to
r eplace them. The Downer s Gr ov e offi ce closed enti r ely in August 2014. Cer tai n functi ons and posi ti ons, including those of Under w r i ter s and Juni o r U nder w r i ter s, subsequently

w or ked r emotely for the Fi sher s, Indi ana offi ce. After thei r ter minati ons, Reed and B a tes 1 sued Fr eedom Mor tgage for r ace-based di s cr i minati on under the Illi noi s Human Ri ghts Act. 2 See 7 75 ILCS 5/1-101 et s e q
. Reed alleged that he w as subj ected to di spa r a t e t r eatment and ulti mately

1 Ba tes’ cl a i ms were v o l unta ri l y di smi ssed i n 2 0 1 6 a n d s he ha s ta ken no pa rt i n the a ppea l

.

2 R eed o ri gi na l l y br o u ght hi s sui t i n the Ci rcui t Co urt of Co o k Co unty. Freedo m M o rtga ge remo v ed the s ui t t o fed e r a l co urt b a sed o n di v ersi ty j uri sdi cti o n. Reed is a ci ti z en o f Il l i no i s. F reedo m M ortga ge i s i nco rpo ra ted i n New Je r s e y , ha s i ts pri nci pa l pl a ce of b u si ness i n New Jersey a nd i s therefo re a ci ti z en o f New Jersey.6 No. 16-3661

ter minated fr om employment on the basi s o f r a c e
. On cr ossmoti ons for summary j udgment, the di str i ct c our t concluded that Reed had n o ev id e n c e that the defendant acted agai nst hi m on account of hi s r ace. I n par ti cular , the cour t found that Reed had no ev i dence that he w as tr eated less fav or ably than si mi lar ly si tua ted non-Afr i can-Amer i c an employ ees, that he fai led to s how that the deni al of hi s r equest to w or k fr om home and the deni al of hi s pr omoti on to the p osi ti on of Junio r Under wr i ter w er e a dv er se em p l o yment acti ons, and that he could not make out a clai m for hosti le w or k env i r onment. The

cour t ther efor e gr anted j udgment in fav or of Fr eedom Mor tgage and deni ed Reed’s moti on for summary j udgment. Reed appeals.
II. On appeal, Reed contends that the c o u r t s hould hav e
cr edi ted a n egati v e infer ence cr eated by the defendant’s fai lur e t o p r o d u c e c e r t a in for mal attendance r ecor ds dur in g di scov er y
. He also o bj ects to the cour t’s r efusal to c onsi der as ev i dence thr e e c e l l phone vi deos r ecor d ed b y Bates. He ar gues that he pr esented suffi c i ent ev i dence to allow a r easonable j ur y to conclude that Fr eedom Mor tgage di scr i minated agai nst hi m in the company’s appli cati on and enfor cement of i ts Attendance P oli cy , and in hi s ter minati on, all on the basi s of r ace. Fi nally , he a sser ts that the cour t er r ed in finding that h e fai led to make out a clai m for hosti le w or k env i ronment. W e r ev i ew the di str i ct cour t’s gr a nt of summary j udgment de novo , examining the r ecor d in the li ght most f a v o r a b l e to Reed and c onstr uing all r easonable infer ences fr om the

ev i dence in h i s fav or
. Anderso n v
. Liberty Lobby , Inc. , 477 U.S

.No. 16-3661 7 242, 255 (1986); Y

ahnke v
. Kane County

, Ill. , 823 F .3 d 1 0 6 6, 1070 (7th Ci r
. 2 016). S ummar y j udgment i s appr opr i ate when ther e
ar e no genuin e di sput e s o f m a ter i al fact and the mov ant i s enti tled to j udgment a s a m atter of law

. Fed.R.Ci v

. P

. 5 6 ( a); Anderson , 477 U.S

. a t 2 5 6 ; Y ahnke, 823 F .3d at 1 0 70. Illi noi s
cour ts apply the fe d e r al Ti tle VII fr amew or k to clai ms of di scr i min ati on made under the Illi noi s H uman Ri ghts Act, and th e p a r ti es agr ee that i t i s appr opr i ate to apply the Ti tle VII fr amew or k her e. V

olling v
. Kurtz Paramedic Servs., Inc. , 840 F .3d 378, 3 83 (7th Ci r
. 2016); Zade r a k a v
. Illinois Human Rights Commission , 545 N.E.2d 684, 687 (Ill. 1989) (noti ng that, in analyzi ng employment di scr i minati on acti ons br ought under the Human Ri ghts Act, the Com m is s i on and the Illi noi s appellate cour t hav e a dopted the analyti c al fr a mew or k set for th in Uni ted S tates S upr eme Cou r t d eci si ons a ddr essing clai m s b r ought under Ti tle VII, and t h a t the Illi noi s Supr eme Cour t w ould follow the same appr oach). Reed p r oceeded under the bur den-shi fti ng an a l ysi s of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v . Green , 411 U.S

. 792 (1973), and the di str i ct cour t ev aluated the c ase using that fr amew or k. Under McDonnell Douglas , Reed has the ini ti al bur den of establi shing that (1) he i s a member of a pr otected class; (2) he w a s m eeti ng hi s employ er 's legi ti mate per for mance expectati ons; (3) h e w as subj ected to an adv er s e employment ac t io n ; and (4) si mi lar ly si tuated employ ees outsi de of h i s pr otected class w er e tr eated

mor e fa v o r ably by the employ er
. 411 U.S

. at 802-03; David v
. B o a r d o f T rs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508 , 846 F .3d 216, 225 (7t h Ci r
. 2017). No matter the fr amew or k employ ed, the u lti m ate legal questi on “i s si mply whether the ev i d ence w ould per mi t
a reasonable factfin der to conclu de t hat the plain ti ff's r ace,8 No. 16-3661
ethnici ty , s ex, r eli gi on, or other pr oscr ibed factor caused the di schar ge or other adv er se employment a c ti on.” Ortiz v
. W erner Enters., Inc. , 834 F .3d 760, 765 (7th Ci r
. 2016). In applying thi s standar d, ev i dence m ust be consider ed as a whole,

r a the r t han asking whether any par ti cular pi ece of ev i dence pr ov es the case by i tself. Id

. Befor e w e assess the adequacy of Reed’s ev i d ence, we m ust fi r st addr ess whether the di str i ct c our t er r ed in d e c lin ing to consi der the cell phone v i d e o s that Reed pr oduced and in
r efusing to apply the n egati v e infer ence that Reed wi shed the

cour t to dr aw fr om the defendant’s fai lur e to pr oduce f or mal attendance r ecor ds dur ing di scov er y
. W e r ev i ew the d istr i ct
cour t's ev i denti ar y r ulings f or abuse of di scr eti on. Griffin v
. Bell , 694 F .3d 817, 826 (7th Ci r
. 2012). Th e di s tr i ct cour t declined to consi der the cell p h o n e v i deos because they w er e not pr oper l y authenti cated and because Reed’s counsel di d not ti mely inc l u de the v i deos in hi s appendi x of exhibi ts. On appeal, Reed’s lawy er challenges only the deter m in ati on that the v i deos w er e not pr oper ly a uthenti cated, f ai ling to addr ess the cour t’s second r eason for excluding them. “ When a di s tr i ct
cour t gi v es tw o indepe n d e nt, di sposi ti v e r easons for ruling agai nst a par ty

, a nd the p ar ty challen g e s o nl y one of those gr ounds, any challenge to the alter n ate basi s i s w ai v ed and w e
m a y a f fi r m.” Griffin , 694 F .3d at 826. A fai lur e to addr ess a
cour t’s second r ati onale i s a n adequate basi s to affi r m the

cour t’s deci si on, but in any case, the vi d eos w e r e pr oper ly excluded. Reed’s counsel sought to admi t them to pr ov e that only Afr i c an- Amer i can employ ees w er e r equi r ed to begi n
w or ki ng at 8 a.m., but nei ther Ree d nor Bates (who recor ded the v i deos) could r ecall the dates or ti mes that the v i deos w er eNo. 16-3661 9

r ecor ded. Reed coul d n o t say whether the vi deos w er e recor d ed befor e or after Bid str up’s emai l adv i sin g the w or ker s that they could n o l onger set thei r own hour s
. Mor eov er , Reed conceded that the v i deos show ed only a l im it e d par t of the offi ce. See Griffin , 694 F

. 3d a t 826-27 (affi r ming exclusi on of photos and v i deo that di splay ed only par t of the r elev ant scene and that bor e no date or ti me stamp). Ther e w as no abuse of di scr eti on i ndeclining to consi der the v i deos. Reed’ s c o unsel also complains that the cour t should hav e appli ed a negati v e infer ence to Fr eedom Mor tgage’s f ai lur e to pr oduce cer tai n documents d u r ing the d i s cov er y pr ocess. Reed’s c ounsel r equ e s t ed “[a]ll documents that tend to substanti ate the alle g a t i ons asser ted in the Complain t.” R. 74-7, at 1 1. He also r equested “[a]ll documents r elati ng to an y employ ees who made r equests to w or k fr om h ome f or the ti me p e r i od of 2 012

– pr esent.” R. 74-7, at 10. Fr eedom M o r t g a g e obj ected to both r equests on multi ple gr ounds, includin g that the r equests w er e ov er l y br oad. In hi s fi rst set of inter rogator i es, Reed’s l a wye r a s k e d fo r i d e n ti fyi ng infor mati on r egar ding each employ ee who w as allow ed to w or k fr om home and each per son who w as di sci plined as a r esult of v i olati ng the attendance poli cy

. R. 5 0-25, at 10. Fr eedom Mor tgage agai n obj ected to the requ e s t s on multi ple gr ounds. Reed’s lawy er fai l ed to follow u p wi th Fr eedom Mor tgage on the obj ecti ons and nev er
mov ed to compel pr oducti on. Hav ing fai led to res o l v e thi s si mple di scov e r y di spute, the p lain ti ff’s lawy er now seeks to apply a r u l e fr om another ci r cui t, wher e a cour t held that a par ty’s wi lful r efusal to comply wi th a subpoena may gi v e ri se to an in fer ence that the wi thheld in for mati on w as fav or able to i ts opponent. International Union, United Auto., Ae rospace &10 No. 16-3661 Agric. Im p l e m ent W

orkers of A merica v
. National Labor Relations B d

. , 4 5 9 F

. 2d 1329, 1336 (D.C. Ci r
. 1972) (“S i mply stated, th e
r u le pr ov i des that when apar ty has r elev ant ev i dence wi thi n hi s contr ol whi ch he fai ls to pr oduce, that fai lur e gi v es r i se to
an infer ence that the ev i dence i s unfav or able to hi m.”). In thi s ci r cui t, a negati v e infer ence may ar i se when a par ty intenti onally destr oys documents in bad fai th. Faas v
. Sears , Roebuck & Co. , 532 F .3d 6 3 3, 644 (7th Ci r
. 2 008). A document i s destr oy ed in bad f ai th i f i t i s destr oy ed f or the pur pose of hi ding adv er se infor m ati on. Id

. Reed’s counsel p r esents no ev i dence of bad fai th or the hi ding of infor mati on by Fr eedom Mor tgage. The

r ecor d shows nothi ng mor e than the m ost or d in ar y k i nd of di scov er y d i spute regar d ing ov er ly br oad document requests and in ter r ogator i es. Once Fr eedom M o r t gage obj ected, the

onus w as on Reed’s counsel to attempt to r esolv e the d i spute
or compel pr oducti on. Hav ing fai l ed to do ei ther , ther e can be

no c omplaint about mi ssing ev i dence. The negati v e infer ence
r u le i s si mply inappli cable to the scenar i o pr esented her e. W e tur n to the McDonnell Douglas analysi s. No one di sputes that Reed i s a m ember of a pr otected class or that hi s ter m inat io n w a s an adv er se employment a cti on. The par ti es di sput e whether h e w as per for ming to hi s employ er ’s s a ti sfacti on and

w h ether si mi l ar ly s i tuated employ ees outsi de hi s class w e r e t r eated mor e f av or ably

. Reed conceded that he had r ec e i v e d

or al and wr i tten w ar nings for v i olati ng the Attendance P oli cy , and that he c o nti nued to b e absent a nd late on multi ple occasi ons after hi s employ er r ei ter ated both the poli cy and the

cons e q u e n ces for v i olati ng i t. The questi on i s whether he pr oduced any ev i d ence that si mi lar ly si tuated non-Afr i canAmer i c an employ ees w er e tr eated mor e f av or ably

. “S i mi lar lyNo. 16-3661 11
si tuated” m eans di r ectly com pa r a b le in all mater i al r espects. Perez v
. Thorntons, Inc. , 731 F

. 3 d 6 9 9 , 704 (7th Ci r
. 2 013). The obj ectiv e is to eli m inate other p ossi ble explanator y v ar i ables such as di ffer in g roles, per for m a nce hi stor i es, or decis ionmaki ng per s onnel, in or d er to i solate the cr i ti cal in dependent

v ar i able of di scr i m inator y ani mus. Perez , 731 F .3d at 704; Coleman v
. Donahoe, 667 F .3d 835, 8 46 ( 7 t h C ir

. 2012). “The p r oposed compar ator need not be i denti c al in ev er y conc e i v able w ay , how ev er

, and cour ts must conduct a ‘common-sense exami nati on.’” Perez , 731 F .3d at 704 (quoti ng Coleman , 667 F .3d at 846). Whether a compar ator i s si mi lar ly si tuated i s typi cally

a questi on for the fact-finder , unless, of cour s e, the p lainti ff has

no ev i dence fr om whi ch a r easonab l e f act-finder could conclude that the plainti ff met hi s b ur den on thi s i ssue. C o l e man , 667 F .3d at 846-47. Reed poi n ts to f our whi te employ ees as compar ator s who, he asser ts, w er e tr eated mor e fav or ably t h an he w as: S andy Baki r , Kathleen Fr ench, Br i dge t G lass and Ni cole Landi s
. 3 Baki r , Fr ench and Glass w er e T eam Leads as w ell as Br oker Li ai sons. T hey had si gni fi cantly gr eater seni or i ty than Reed. Landi s w as a B r oker Li ai son who w as gi v en a v erbal w ar ning for mi ssing w or k on a single occasi on. 4 If those w er e the only

3 On a ppea l, R eed a r gues tha t o ther whi te empl o yees a l so ha d s i mi l a r di s ci pl i na ry pro bl e ms a nd po o r a ttenda nce reco rds, b ut hi s cl a i ms rega rdi ng tho se o ther empl o yees suffer the sa me infi rmi ti es a s hi s ev i dence rega rdi ng these fo ur empl o yees, a nd so we co nfi ne our di scussi o n to these fo ur.

4 Reed a sserts tha t La ndi s wa s o nce ab sent f o r fi v e co nti nuo us da ys. The (co nti nued...)12 No. 16-3661
di ffer ences, we mi ght conclude that the questi on of si mi lar i ty should go to the j ur y

. But Reed’s c ounsel pr esented no ev i

dence that any of these employ ees had a si mi lar hi stor y of

v i o l a t i ons of the Attendance P oli cy or a si mi lar di sci plinar y
r ecor d. Hav ing fai led to follow thr ough on hi s di sc o v e r y
r equests, 5 Reed’s lawy er seeks to r ely on hi s c l ient’s per sonal obser v a ti ons of other w or ker s’ ar r i v al ti mes and absences fr om
w or k. Cer tai nly a w i tness wi th per sonal knowledge of a matter may testi fy to that matter

. Fed. R. Ev i d. 602; United States v
. Mendiola , 707 F .3d 735, 741 ( 7th Ci r
. 2013) (“the knowledge

r equi r ed by Rule 602 i s not absolute or un li mi ted knowledge but si mply that aw ar eness of obj ects or ev ents that begi ns wi th

sensor y per cepti on of them, a compr ehensi on of them, and an abi li ty to testi f

y at tr i al about them.”).
B u t R e e d testi fi ed only that he h ad s een these othe r employ ees ar r i v e after 8 a.m. an unspecifi ed number of ti mes
on dates that he could not rec a l l

. The r ecor d does not rev eal whether the late appear ance s c a me befor e or after the emai l

4 (...co nti nued)

co m pa ny’s A t tenda nce Po l i cy t rea ted a co nti nuo us mul t i -da y ab sence a s
o ne “ o cca si o n.”

5 R eed’s co unsel a ttempted to cha ra c t e r i z e h i s di s co v ery requests a s i n c l u di ng perso nnel a nd a ttenda nce reco rds fo r co mpa ra t o rs, b ut he requested p erso nnel reco rds o nl y fo r the pl a i nti ffs th emsel v es. A l tho u gh

a ttenda nce reco rds fo r co mpa ra to rs co ul d a rgu a bl y b e i ncl uded in the request fo r “ [a ]l l do cuments tha t tend to sub sta nti a te the a l lega ti o ns i n the Co mpl a int,” tha t request wa s so b ro a d a nd v a gue tha t i t ga v e no rea so nab l e fra mewo rk fo r a respo nse. Co unsel i n ex pl i cab l y fa i l ed to request the mo st rel ev a nt reco rds n ecessa ry to ma k e o u t the c l a i m : the perso nnel a nd

a ttenda nce reco rds o f no n-A fri ca n-A m eri ca n co mpa ra to rs.No. 16-3661 13
demanding s tr i c t adher ence to the offi ce schedule. Nor i s ther e
ev i dence r egar ding whethe r th e o th e r e m p l o yees h ad asked for

or r ecei v ed p er mi ssi on for alter nate schedules as pr ov i ded in that emai l, or whether manage m ent w as aw ar e that other employ ees w er e not c omplyi ng wi th the Attendance P o l i c y
. Except for one instance, ther e w a s n o ev i dence of whether any of the other employ ees had r ecei v ed wr i tten or or al di sci p line for unexcused lateness or absence. In that one instance, Landi s had r e c e iv e d an or al w ar ning. But the r ecor d does not rev eal Landi s’s a ttendance r ecor d after that w ar ning or any ev i dence of whether Landi s’ total number of absences appr o a ched Reed’s r ecor d. Nor i s ther e ev i dence r egar ding whether any employ ees w er e a llow ed to w or k fr om h ome follow i n g the Januar y 21 emai l ending the pr acti ce. Reed’s lawy er s i mply fai led to gather the ev i dence t h a t
w ould hav e made hi s cli ent’s per sonal obser v ati ons r elev ant to the fact he w as tr yi ng to pr ov e. The pr oblem i s not, as Fr eedom Mor tgage complains, that Reed f a i led to cor r obor ate hi s per sonal ob s e r v a ti ons. Ther e i s no r ule r equi r ing c or r obor ati on for per s onal obser v ati ons. T he pr oblem i s that Reed’s lawy er fai led to gather ev i dence r egar ding the ti ming or context of the per sonal obser v ati ons that w ould hav e made them r elev ant to the p oi n t he w as tr yi ng to pr ov e, namely , that these employ ees had si mi lar atten d a n c e i ssues and w er e tr eated m or e fav or ably

. Reed’s lawy er di d not pur s ue thr ough di scov er y any ev i dence

r eg a r ding the s cheduled w or k hour s of other employ ees, whether and how often tho s e w o r ker s w er e tar dy , whether management w as aw ar e of any late ar r i v als, whetherany late

w or ker s had p e r mi ssi on to b e tar d y , a nd whether any other unexcused tar diness r esulted in di sci pline.14 No. 16-3661
Other than a single occur r ence w i th Landi s, the r ecor d

c o n tai ns no ev i dence r egar ding the attendance of si mi lar ly si tuated whi te empl o y ees. On thi s recor d, only Reed had s o many documented v i olati ons of the Attendance P oli cy , and only Re e d c o n t inued to v i olate the P oli cy after being w a r ned of the consequences of hi s fai l ur e to comply

. On thi s r ecor d, Bi dstr u p w as aw ar e only of Reed’s r e peated v i olati ons of the Attendance P oli cy

. Reed’s lawy er si mply f a i led to g a ther any
ev i dence demonstr ati ng that ther e w er e any non-Afr i canAmer i c an employ ees wi th Attendance P oli cy v i olati on r ecor ds

ev en r emotely si m i lar to Reed’s. Ortiz , 834 F .3d at 765. He ther efor e cannot demonstr a te that Fr eedom Mor tgage tr eated si mi lar ly si tuated employ ee s m o r e fav or ably , and hi s clai m fai ls as a matter of law

. R e e d ’ s fin al ar gument, th a t F r e e d o m M o r t g a g e p e r p e tu a t e d

a hosti le w or k env i r onment, si mply r ehashes hi s cla i m fo r r acebased ter minati on. The clai m i s pr edi cated on th e a s s er ti on that the c ompany e m p loy ed di ffer ent attendance poli ci es for Afr i can-Amer i can and whi te w or ker s, that Afr i can-Amer i can
w or ke r s w er e di spr opor ti onately moni tor ed and di sci p lined under those poli c i es, and that hi s ter minati on w as the r esult of the di scr i min a tor y appli cati on of those poli ci es, all c r eati ng a hosti le w or k env i r onment. Thi s clai m fai ls for the same r eason
as the wr ongful ter minati on clai m, namely that Reed’s lawy er fai led to gather ev i dence demonstr ati ng t h a t the c ompany tr eated si mi lar ly si tuated non-Afr i c an-Amer i can employ ees
mor e fav or ably than Afr i can - Amer i can employ ees. W e hav e consi der ed the r emaining ar guments and fin d them w it hout

mer i t. AFFIRMED.