## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3345 T O Y C OLL I NS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A MERI CAN R ED C RO SS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 08- cv-50160

—Fr ederic k J . Kap ala, Judge .
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 28, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 8, 2013

Befo re K ANN E , W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . T oy C ollin s w or ke d for th e A m er ican Red Cros s. The R ed C ross l ate r fi re d her afteran i nvest i gat i on co ncl ud ed that Col l i ns co m m i tte d m ult

i ple act s o fem plo yee m isco nd uct. Col l i ns sued under Tit l e VI I, cl ai m i ng tha t s he was re al l y fi re d because o f il legal retaliati on an d discrim ination. Th e d istri ct cou rt f ound that Col l i ns di d not p resent enough e vi dence to supp or t hercl ai m s a nd gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent for th e R e d C r o s s . We a g r e e wi th th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta n d a ffi r m.2 N o. 11

- 3345 I. B ACK GR OUN D T oy C ol l i ns fi rs t s tar ted working with the Am er i can Red C ro ss in 1 998 as a pai d vol unteerwith Am er i Corps, a federalco m m unity s er vi ce o rg ani zati on. A fterher A m er i Corps s ti nt ended i n 200 0, th e Red C ro ss hi re d Col l i ns as a full

- ti m e e m plo yee i n i ts Rockf or d, I l l i n ois offi ce. Col l i ns is A fri can- A m er i can. In the sum m ero f20 06, Col l i ns cal l ed the Red C ro ss’ s 2 4- h ou r confi denti al hotl i ne to co m p lai n abo ut di scr i m i nati on: she al l ege d that her co- w or ker s put t acks o n herchai r, dam age d her proper ty, dem anded pri vate i nfo rm atio n, st ol e her f i l e s , r e q u i r e d h e rt o p a y b u s i n e s s c o s t s fr o m h e ro wn po c k e t, a nd o the r wi s e h a r a s s e d a nd s ab o t a g e d h e r . On A ugust 3 1, 20 06, she fi l ed a r aci al di scr i m i nati on c h a r g e w i th th e E q u a lE mp l o y me n tO p p o r t u n i t y C o mm i ss i on ( “EE OC ”)
. The EEO C gave hera “r i ght- to- sue” l ett ero n Feb ruary 26, 20 07, but Col l i ns di d not s ue at that ti m e. I n J u n e 2 0 0 7, s e v e r a lo fC o l l i ns ’ s c o - wo r k e r s c o mpla i ned th at Col l i ns ( 1) to l d other s that the Red Cros s w as ou t to get m inoriti e s ; ( 2) said sh e cou ld n ot w ork w ith hom osex ua ls; (3) instru cted an em p loyee to falsify re cor ds; ( 4) co er ced a subor dinat e into tea chi ng a cl ass f orfree; and (5 ) ga ve out bl ank c er ti fi cati ons f or Red Cr o s s c o ur s e s . T he R e d C r o s s a s s i g ne d J a ne tS t i ce, a hum an r eso urces o ffi cerfrom a d i ffer ent o ffi ce, to i nvest i gat e the co m pla i nts. S ti ce inter vi ew ed ei ght wit

nesse s b et w ee n J une 26, 20 07, and J une 28, 20 07. S ti ce al so i nt er vi ew ed Col l i ns , who de ni ed th e al l eg at i o nsN o. 11

- 3345 3 aga i nst he r. U l ti m ate l y, S ti c e fou n d al lo fthe al l ega ti ons aga in st Col l i ns were “[ s] ubstanti ate d.” ( R. 77

- 20 at 8. ) S ti ce c om p il ed he rfi ndi ng s i n a wri tt enr epo r t an d re c om m en d ed th at C ollin s b e t er m in at ed . ( Id. at2-8 .) Bas ed o n the r epo r t, the Re d Cr o ss t er m i na te d Co l l i ns o n J ul y 1 6, 200 7. Co l l i ns s ue d unde rTi tl e VI I, a l l eg i ng th atthe Re d Cr o ss r et al i ate d a g ains t he rf o rfi l i ngthe 2006 EEO C com pla i nt and discr im i nated ag ai nst he r becau se o fhe rr ac e. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe Red C ro ss, and Col l i ns now appeal s.
II. A NA LYSIS S um m ary j udg m en t is pr o perwher e “the r e i s no g enui ne di spu te a s to a ny mate r i alf ac t an d the mova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56(a). W e review the d istri ct cou r t ’s entry of sum m ary j ud gm ent deno vo a nd v i ew th e evi den ce i n the l i g ht m os t fa vo r a b l e to th e n on m ov in g p ar ty
. Arizanov s ka v
. Wal-M art Stores, Inc. , 68 2 F. 3d 698, 702 (7th Cir

. 20 12)
. That sai d, w e w i l lnotdraw i nfe re nces “thatar e s up port ed by onl y s pecula ti on o r conj ectur e. ” Harpe rv. C
. R. Engl and, Inc. , 6 87F. 3d 29 7, 3 06 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2)
. A ge nui ne i ss ue ofm ate ria lf act exi sts o nl y where ther e i s e nough evi dence that a re aso nabl e j ury coul d r eturn a ver dict infav or of t h e n o n m ov in g p ar ty
. Id. H er e, Col l i ns r ai ses tw o T itle V II c laim s: on e fo r ret alia tio n, see 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 00 0e -3(a ), an d an ot h er for d isc rim in at ion, see 4 2 U
. S
. C. § 2 000e

- 2( a)
. The di str i c t c ou rtente re d sum m ar y j ud gme n ti n f av o r ofth e R e d C r o s s o n b o th c l a i ms , a n d we wi l la ddr es s ea chi n tur n.4 N o. 11

- 3345 A. Re t al i at i on Tit l e VI If orbi ds reta liating ag ai nst a n em plo yee “b ec au se h e h as op p os ed an y p ra c ti c e m ad e . . . unlawful

. . . by thi s subchapter, o r because he ha s m ade a charg e, te sti fi ed, as si ste d, orparti ci pated i n any m anner inan inv es tig at ion, p ro c ee d in g, or h ea rin g u n d er th is subchapter

. ” 4 2 U.S
. C. § 2 000e

- 3( a)
. H er e, C ol l i ns at tem pts t o p r o v e h e rr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m un de rthe “di r e c tme tho d” ofpro of

. To do so, she m ust s h ow that ( 1) she engag ed i n prot ecte d acti vi ty und erTi tle VI I ; ( 2) she suffer ed an ad ver se em plo ym ent a cti on; and, ( 3) ther e i s a cau sall i nkb etwee n h erpr o te ct ed ac ti vi tya nd the ad ve rs e a c tio n . Se eCol e m an v. D onah oe, 667 F. 3d 83 5, 859 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. The Red Cros s r i ghtl y concedes that fi l i nga n EEOC c o m pl aintwas a p rot ec te d a ct i vi tya nd th atCo l l i ns ’ s te r m i na ti o n was a n a d ver se e m pl o y m en t ac tio n . Se eAr izanov s ka , 6 82 F
. 3d at7 03-04. Thus , the o nl y que st i o n i s whethe rthe r e was a c au sa ll i nk between the tw o. To answer thi s quest i on, Col l i ns d ire c ts us to J anet St i ce’ s r epor t r eco m m ending that the R ed Cro ss term inate C oll ins. T he “D isposition” sec tion of th e rep ort i ncl ud e d a l i s to fa l l e g a t i o ns tha tS t i c e f o un d t o be “[ s] ubstanti ate d.” ( SeeR. 7 7- 20 at 8
. ) One o ftho se c o nc l usi ons w as that Col l i ns “has tol d o ther s that [ the Red Cro ss] i s o ut to g et m i nor i ti es. ” ( Id. ) Acco r di ngt o Co l l i ns tho ug h, n o n e o fS t i c e ’ s i n t e r v i e ws a c t u a l l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d th i s c l a i m. T hu s, C oll ins con clud es, th e rep ort m us t ha ve b e e n referring to Col lin s’s EE O C com p lai nt, and a reasona ble j ury cou ld fi nd i n h er favor.N o. 11

- 3345 5 W e di sag re e. S ti ce’ s r epor t be gi ns with a list o fal l ega ti ons, o ne o fwh i ch w as that Col l i ns “t ol d othe rs that [ the Red Cro ss] i s o ut to ge t m in or ities. ” ( Id. at2. ) Fr om th e r e , th e r e p o r tc o n t a i n s s e v e r a lp a g e s o fb r i e fs u mm ar i es o fi nt er vi ews wi thCo l l i ns ’ s co - wor k er s. F o l l o wi ng th ata r e se ve r al pag es o fwhata ppea rt o b e r o ug h t r an sc r i pti o ns o fS ti ce’ s i nt er vi ew wi thCo l l i ns . F i na l l y, the l astpage ofthe re portco ncl u des thatthe i ni ti alal l ega ti o ns a r e “[ s] ubs tan ti at ed” a nd r ec o m m en ds th atCo l l i ns b e t e r mi na t e d. R ead as a w hole, w e t hin k i t clear that Stice’s rep ort w as n otre f e r r in g t o C ollin s’s E E O C co m p lain t w h en it c on c lu d ed th at C ollin s “ to ld oth er s th at [th e R ed C ro ss ] is out to get m in or itie s. ” ( Id. at8. ) The r epor t doe s no t e ver m enti on Col l i ns’ s nea rl y y ear - ol d E EO C com pla i nt. W hat i t d oes m enti on, however, i s a se ri es ofco m pla i nts an d a l l e g a t i o n s ab o u tC o l l i n s s t i r r i n gu p t e n s i o ns between herco - w or ker s. A c cor ding to one i nter vi ew sum m ar y in the re port, Collins cal l ed one co- w or ker“a ra ci st” and another co-w or ker“a l esbi an. ” ( Id. at 3. ) A th ird co - w o rk er sa id th at C ollin s “ is v er y p ar an oid ab o uto th erpe o pl e” a nd “ th i nk s th atpe o pl e ha ve c o nspi ra ci es out to get her

. ” ( Id. at4. ) The tr anscr i pt of th e in te rv iew w ith C ollin s a l s o p ro vid es gu id an c e; it i nd i cate s that S tic e aske d C ol l i ns “Di d you t el lA dri anna, w e hav e t o stick t oge therbec ause they ar e a l lr aci st?” ; and “ [ D]i d y ou say that K athy w as a ra ci st?” ( Id. at5-6 .) G iven th is cont ex t, w e thin k i t clear that th e rep ort w as co n c er n ed w ith C ollin s s ow in g ra c ial te n sio n in the o ffi ce, notwith he r EE OC co m pla i nt.6 N o. 11

- 3345 C oll ins resp ond s tha t the rep o r t d id n ot d o a parti cul ar l y g o o d j o b o fs uppo r tingthi s co nc l us io n. And Col l i ns i s not w ro ng. Fo r i nstance , the re porti nd i cate s that St i ce a ske d i fCol l i ns to l d “A dri anna” that “ w e hav e to sti ck tog etherbec ause they ar e a l lr aci st?” ( Id. a t 5 .) S t i c e ’ s s u mma r y o fh e ri n t e r v i e w wi th“ Ad r i a n a , ” h o wev er , d oe s n otsp e c ifica lly m en tio nth is a lleg at ion . ( Id. at 3. ) Doubtl ess , then, S ti ce c oul d have docum ented her fi nd i ngs m or e cl ear l y. N eve rthel ess , atl eas t som e t hi ng in the r epor t s ugges ts that i t was co nc er n ed w i th Col l i ns so w i ng r aci al tensi on in the offi ce. Ind eed, se ver al parts o fthe re portdo. But noth ing i n the re portsugg est s that i t was co ncer n ed w ith Col l i ns’ s EEO C com pla i nt. A n d w e s ee n o re as on w h y a rea so n ab le jur y w ou ld rej ect a pro posi ti on s up port ed by som e, albei t i m perfect, ev id en c e in fav or of a p ro p os itio n su p p or te d b y n o e vid en c e a t a ll. T h u s, w e d o n otth in k t h at a r e a s o n a b le jur y c ou ld fi nd th at th e rep ort’s conc lusions referred to Collins ’s EEO C c o mpl a i n t
. O f c o u r s e , th a t d o e s n o t me a n th a t th e re port ’ s co ncl usi ons w er e correc t
. Co l l i ns d en i es making th e st at ement s th atthe r epo r t at tr ib ut es t o he r, a nd we mu s t a s s u me , a t th i s s t a g e , th a t C o l l i n s i s t e l l i ng t he tr uth. S ti ce’ s r epor t was sl oppy, a n d p er haps i t was al so m istaken o r eve n unfai r. But Ti tl e VI Idoes not forb id slop p y, m ist ak en , or u n fair te rm in at ion s; it forb id s d isc rim in at or y or ret alia to r y te rm in at ion s. See Bro w n v. Advoc at eS. Su b ur b an Hos p. , 70 0 F
. 3d 1101 , 1 1 0 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 2 )
. C o l l i n s h a s p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e s h o wi ng, a t m o st, tha t th e r epo r t’ s co nc l us i o ns wer e wro ng . But sh e ha s no t pr o vi ded an y th i ng

— apartfr om m er e s pecula

-N o. 11

- 3345 7

T he read er m ay w on d er ab ou t C ollin s’s alleg ed com m en ts 1 th a t S tic e’s r ep o rt fou n d t o b e “ [s]u b sta n tia te d .” (R . 77 -2 0 at 8.) Fo r exam ple, acc ording to the re port, Colli ns “t old others that [ the Red Cr os s ] i s outto getm i nor i t i es ” and t ol d one ofhe r c ow o rk er s th a t a n o th er c o -w o rk er w a s a ra ci st. ( Id
. at3, 8. ) Did the Red Cro s s r et al i at e aga i ns tCol l i ns f orm aki ng these statem en ts? And, i fs o, woul d thatgi ve ri s e t o a Ti t l e V I I c l ai m ? I nt er es t i ng quest ions a ll, b ut w e need not add res s them

. Colli ns denie s m aking the st atem ents that St ic e’ s report att ribu tes to her. ( See, e . g. , Appel l ant ’ s Br. at11 , 14
. ) And, ne edl es s t o s ay, Col l i ns can no t w in a su it ba sed on f actu al ev en ts that she insists ne ve r h a ppe ne d. ti on

— that the re port ’ s concl usi ons w er e w rong b e ca us eof C o llins’s EEO C complai nt
. A s a r esul t, the Red C ro ss w as enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent. 1

B. D i s cr i m i nat i on C ollin s also c laim s th at th e Re d C ro ss ra c iall y d i sc rim inated ag ai nst he r. Ti tl e VI Im ake s itil l ega lforan e m plo yer “t o fa il o r r efu se to h ire or to d isc h ar ge an y in d ivid u al, oro ther w i se to disc ri m i nate aga i nst a ny i nd i vi du alwith re sp ec t t o h is c om p en sa tio n, ter m s, co n d itio n s, o r p riv il e g e s o fe mpl o y men t ” o n the b a s i s o fr a c e . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 000e

- 2(a)( 1)
. Genera l l y s peaki ng, ther e a re two w ays ofpro vi ng such a cl ai m : the “dir ect” m etho d ofpro of an d th e “ in d ire c t” m et h od of p ro of. S e e Naf i cy v. Il l
. D ep’t o f H um a n S ervs. , 697F.3d 5 0 4 , 5 09 (7t h C ir. 20 12 ). B ut c f. Cole m an , 6 67F
. 3d at8 63 ( W o o d, J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ) ( ar g ui ng th a tth e d i r e c t/ i n d i r e c td i s t i n c t i o n i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y c o m-8 N o. 11

- 3345 p lica te d an d th at “t h e t im e h as co m e t o c olla p se all th es e t e s t s i n to on e” ). U n d er th e d ire c t m et h od , a pla i nti ffm us t p rovi de ei therdi re ct o r ci rcum sta nti al evi dence thatthe em plo yerhad a d i scr i m i natory m oti vati o n. Naf

i cy, 697 F. 3d at 509. A nd under the i nd i re ct m etho d, a pl ai nt iff m ust s ati sfy the well

- w or n re quir em en ts of M cDonne l l D ougl as Corp. v. Green , 411 U
. S. 79 2 (1 97 3). SeeNaficy, 69 7 F
. 3d at 509. C oll ins em p loys bot h m e t hod s here, and w e w il l start by add re ssing the i nd ire ct m etho d. U nd erthe i nd i re ct m etho d, a pl ai nti ffm ust fi rs t e stabl i sh a pri m a f aci e case bypr o vi di nge vi den ce “ th at( 1) s he i s a m em be ro fthe prot ecte d c l ass ; ( 2) she m et her em plo yer ’ s l egi ti m ate j ob exp ec ta tio ns; ( 3) she suffer ed an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on; and ( 4) si m i l ar l y s i tu ated em plo yee s ou tsid e of th e prot ecte d class w ere treated m ore favorabl y. ” Id. at51 1. I fshe does so, then the b urden shi fts to th e e mp l o y e r“ t o i n t r o d u c e a l e g i t i ma t e , n o n d i s c r i mi natory r eas on f orthe em plo ym ent a cti on. ” Id. I fthe empl o y ermeet s th atb ur deno fpr o duct i o n, th enthe burden shi fts backto the plain ti ffto pro vi de evi dence th at th e e m p loy er ’s re as on w as p re te x tu al. Id. at51 1- 12. “N orm all y a cou rt shou ld fi rst d eterm ine ifa plaintiff ha s es tabl i sh ed a pr i m a f ac i e ca se b efo r e su bj ec tingthe em p loyer to th e p retex t in q uiry
. ” Haguev. Thom ps on D i s t r i b
. Co. , 43 6 F
. 3d 816, 82 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ). But wh er e, as here , “a n em plo yerhas ci ted per f or m ance i ssue s as the j usti fi cati on f ori ts advers e a cti on, the perf or m an ce el em ent o fthe pri m a f aci e ca se c an not be s epara ted fro m ” t h e p re te x t in q u iry
. D unc an v . F le e t wood M ot orN o. 11

- 3345 9 Hom es of In d ., Inc. , 518 F.3d 486 , 491 (7th C ir. 2008) ( per cu r i am )
. Thus, we m ay appropri ate l y b egin w i th pre text. SeeSe nske v. Sybase, Inc. , 588 F.3d 501 , 507 (7th C ir. 2009). “Pre text m eans a l i e, speci fi cal l y a phony re ason f or som e a cti on. ” M il lbrookv. IB P, Inc. , 28 0 F
. 3d 11 69 , 1 175 ( 7th C ir. 20 02) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). Thus, th e qu e s t io n be fore us “is not w he th er the em p loyer’ s st at ed r ea so n was i na cc ur at e o runf ai r, b utwhethe rthe em ploye r honest l y b el i eve d the r eas ons i t has o ffer ed to expla i n the disc harg e. ” Cole m an , 66 7 F
. 3d at85 2. “I t i s no t th e co ur t’ s con cern tha t ane m pl o y ermay be wro ng about i ts em plo yee ’ s per form ance, o r m ay be t oo har d on i ts e m pl o y ee . R athe r, the o nl y que st i o n i s whethe rthe empl o y er ’ s pr o ffer ed r ea so n w as pr et ex tu al, mean i ng that i t was a l i e. ” Id. H er e, the Red C ro ss cl ai m s that Col l i ns’ s m i sco nd uct, as d es cribed i n St i ce’ s r epor t, was a l egi ti m ate , nondi scr i m inatory reason f orte rm i nati ng her

. S peci fi cal l y, S ti ce concl ud ed that Col l i ns had ( 1) to l d other s t h at the Red Cross w as o u t t o getm i nor i ti es; ( 2) sa i d she co uld not w or k with h om ose xuals ; ( 3) i nstr ucted an e m plo yee to f al si fy r eco rds; ( 4) co er ced a su b or dinat e into tea chi ng a cl ass f orfre e; and ( 5) ga ve out bl ank c er ti fi cati ons f or Red C ro ss c ou rs es. ( R. 77

- 20 at 8. ) Based o n thes e fi nd ings, S tice reco m m en d ed that the R ed Cros s term in at e C ollin s. ( Id. ) C ollin s a rg u es th at Stic e ’s fin d in gs w er e p re te x tu al. In su ppo r t, s he p ro vi des o nl y o ne pi ec e o fe vi den ce : the f act that she “ denie d a llo fthe al l ega ti ons gener ate d du ring” the Red C ro ss’ s invest i gat i on. ( A pp el l ant’ s Br. at10 N o. 11

- 3345 14. ) But, as di scusse d, a p lai nti ffm ust s how thather e mpl o y e ri s lying, no t m er ely th at h er em p loy er is w ro n g. Se eCol e m an , 667F.3d at85 2. As a r e s u l t, a r g u i n g“ ab o u tth e a c c u r a c y o fth e e mp loyer’ s as se ss m en t” i s a “di st r ac ti o n” i n the pr et ex t c onte xt; the f act that a s tat em ent i s inaccurat e doe s no t m ea n t h at itis a d elib er at e lie. Jone s v. U ni on Pac. R. R. Co. , 30 2 F .3d 73 5 , 7 44 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ). A c c or d in gly , m er ely denyi ng the em plo yer ’ s a l l ega ti ons, as Col l i ns d oes her e, is n ot eno ugh to sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent under the i nd i r e c tme tho d. Th a tl e a v e s the di r e c tme tho d. Und e rthi s me tho d, C o l l i ns mu s tp r o v i d e e i th e rd i r e c te v i d e n c e o rc i r c u msta nti alev i dence thatt h e R ed Cros s t er m i nated her b ec au se of ra c ial a n im u s. S e eBrown , 70 0 F
. 3d at 1105
. Dir ec te v i de nc e o fdi s c r i mi na t i o n wo ul d r e qu i r e s o meth in g a kin to an ad m is s i o n f r o m th e R ed C ro ss th at it te rm in a t e d C ollin s b ec au se of h er rac e. Se eRaym ond v. Am e r i t e ch Corp. , 4 4 2 F. 3 d 6 0 0 , 6 1 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. C i r c u mstan tial evid en ce, on the oth er han d , w ou ld req uire C o l l i n s t o “ c o n s t r u c ta c o nv i nc i n gmo s a i c ” th a t“ a l l o ws a j ur y t o i nfer int en ti o na ldi sc r i m i na ti o n b y the deci si onm ake r. ” B r own , 70 0 F
. 3d at 1105 ( i nter nalquotati o n m arks om itted )
. Co l l i ns i den ti fi es o nl y o ne pie ce o fsuch e vi dence her e: the “apparently f al se claim that she had t old u nnam ed ‘ othe rs ’ that[ the Red Cro ss] w as ‘ou t to ge t’ m in or itie s.” (A p p ella n t’s B r. at14 .) “T h is base l ess al l ega ti on, ” s he co nti nues, “s tr ongl y s uggests ra ci alani m us as a m oti ve f orthe ter m i nati on. ” ( Id. ) W e d o not see h ow . Tru e , t he report u sed the w ord “m i nor i ti es, ” but neveri n re fer en c e to Col l i ns’ s s tatus asN o. 11

- 3345 11

a m i nor i ty. A nd ev en as sum i ng, as w e m u st at thi s s tag e, tha t the r e po r t ’ s a l l e g a t i o n wa s “ b a s e l e s s , ” i t do e s no t f ol l ow that i t was r acial l y m oti vate d. Evidence that an empl o y er ca m e to th e wro ng co nc l us ion m ight su gg es t d isc rim in at ion if th e c on c lu sio n w er e i n c r ed ible o n i t s f a c e o ri fi twe r e a c c o mp a n i e d b y o th e rc i r c u msta nti alev i dence. Se e B oumehdiv. Pla s t ag Holdi ngs , LL C, 489 F.3d 781, 792 (7th Cir . 2 0 07) (plaintiff “m us t iden tify such w eaknesse s, i m pla usibi l i ti es, i nconsi ste nci es, o r co nt r adi ct i o ns . . . that a r ea so nabl e per so n c o ul d fi nd th em unwor thy o fc r ede nc e an d he nc e i nfer ” th atthe em p loy er w as l yin g). B u t n on e o f th e e vid en c e in th is c as e fi ts that bi l l ; S ti ce’ s co ncl usi ons ar e no t f aci ally i nc re d ibl e, and nothi ng i n the re cor d sugges ts

— d ire c tly or ind ire c tly

— th atS ti ce o rthe d eci si o nm ak er s atthe Red C ro ss he ld a n y ra ci alani m us. A nd so we are l eft, at m ost, with e vi dence thatthe Red C ro ss w as wrong. That i s no t e nough to sur vi ve su m m ar y j ud gm ent o n a di sc rim in at i o n c laim

. S e eBrown , 7 0 0 F
. 3 d a t1 1 0 6 ( “ Pe r ha ps th eir su p er vis or s’ c rit icis m s w er e u n fair

— cl ea r l y the p lai nt iffs feel that th ey w e re

—but the re i s no ev i dence th at th ey w ere un fai r be causethey werem o ti v a ted by race, a s T i t l e V II forb id s.” ); Di c ke rs o n v . Bd
. o f Trs . o f C mty. C ol l
. D i s t
. No. 52 2 , 65 7 F
. 3d 595, 60 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) (“a ltho ugh [ pl a i nt i ff ] di s a g r e e d wi th hi s n e g a t i v e e v a l ua ti o ns , tha t do es not m ean tha t th e ev alua ti o ns wer e th e re su lt of u n law fu l d isc rim in at ion ”); cf. M alac a ra v . City of M adi s on , 2 2 4 F
. 3 d 7 2 7, 73 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ An em p loyer m ay hire or r efuse to hire an em p loye e for a g o o d r ea so n, a b ad r ea so n, a r ea so n b as ed o n e r r o ne o us f act s, orf orno re aso n at al l, as l ong as i ts acti on i s no t12 N o. 11

- 3345 f ordi scr i m i natory r eas on. ”) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itted ).

III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A F F I RM the di str i ct c ourt ’ s e ntryo fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe A m er i can Red Cros s.

3- 8- 13