United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 27, 2019*

Decided March 28, 2019 

Before 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 18-2330 

PETER ODONGO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CEVA LOGISTICS, U.S., INC. 

and PAUL FOX, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:16-cv-02422-SEB-MJD 

Sarah Evans Barker, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Peter Odongo, who was born in Uganda, briefly worked at CEVA Logistics 

before suing the company and his manager there for race and national-origin 

discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court entered 

summary judgment for the defendants. Because Odongo has not provided sufficient 

evidence to support his claims, we affirm. 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide this 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. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-2330 Page 2 

Odongo was assigned by a staffing agency to work as a “bulk packer” at CEVA’s 

Indianapolis warehouse, where he remained for approximately three weeks until the 

agency fired him for reports of poor performance. His job duties included unpacking 

boxes of bulk merchandise delivered to him by a forklift driver and then placing that 

merchandise into other boxes to fulfill customer orders. When his manager, Paul Fox, 

approached him with concerns about his performance, Odongo complained that the 

forklift driver gave the smaller orders (which could be filled more quickly) to another 

bulk packer and not to him. Fox investigated Odongo’s claims and instructed the 

forklift driver and the other bulk packer not to play favorites. Later, Odongo failed to 

include a large number of parts in an order, prompting Fox to complain to the staffing 

agency, which then ended Odongo’s assignment to CEVA. 

Odongo sued CEVA and Fox, alleging that they subjected him to discrimination 

and a hostile work environment based on his race and national origin, and fired him in 

retaliation for previously having filed charges of discrimination and lawsuits against 

other employers, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et 

seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Odongo based his hostile work environment claim on 

allegations that his coworkers (the forklift driver, in particular) insulted him and 

slowed down his work. 

Discovery ensued, and the defendants eventually moved for summary judgment. 

Odongo later sought sanctions based on allegations that Fox, upon learning of 

Odongo’s charge of discrimination, deliberately destroyed worksheets documenting 

Odongo’s work. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The 

court explained that, even if it assumed that Odongo’s employer was CEVA (rather 

than the staffing agency) and that Fox was his employer’s agent, Odongo had failed to 

meet his evidentiary burden as to each of his claims. He failed to adduce any evidence 

to raise an inference (1) that his termination was based on discrimination rather than 

poor performance; (2) that the harassment he alleged to have faced from coworkers was 

sufficiently severe or pervasive to amount to a hostile work environment, or that it 

related to his race or national origin; or (3) regarding his retaliation claim, that Fox (or 

anyone else at CEVA) knew of his prior complaints of discrimination against other 

employers. The court also denied Odongo’s request for sanctions based on spoliation of 

evidence because he proffered no evidence that Fox had destroyed the worksheets in 

bad faith rather than according to his normal practice of disposing of daily worksheets 

every one or two months. 
No. 18-2330 Page 3 

On appeal, Odongo focuses his argument on his race and national-origin 

discrimination claims and argues that the district court did not view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to him.1 He maintains, for instance that he should not be blamed 

for any performance shortcomings because coworkers delayed his work and Fox 

increased performance expectations too quickly. But even if we take Odongo at his 

word that others played a role in his failure to meet performance expectations, he 

cannot point to anything in the record to challenge the court’s determination that no 

reasonable factfinder could conclude that his race or national origin caused his 

discharge. See, e.g., Reed v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 869 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2017). 

Odongo also argues that the district court wrongly decided his spoliation-ofevidence motion and that a genuine issue of material fact would exist were it not for 

this error. He believes that the court should have inferred that the missing documents 

were adverse to CEVA and Fox, thereby calling into question whether he was fired for a 

nondiscriminatory reason. But such an inference is available only if Fox destroyed 

evidence in bad faith to hide negative information. Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 

633, 644 (7th Cir. 2008). Odongo offers nothing to challenge the district court’s finding 

that Fox destroyed the worksheets not as a means to hide information (that was also 

available in CEVA’s computer system) but as a regular business practice. The district 

court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion. See Bracey v. Grondin, 

712 F.3d 1012, 1020 (7th Cir. 2013); Faas, 532 F.3d at 644–45. 

We have considered Odongo’s remaining arguments, and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED 

 

1 He mounts no challenge to the district court’s conclusions regarding his claim 

of hostile work environment or the defendants’ lack of knowledge about his prior 

discrimination charges against other employers, and we therefore say nothing further 

about these rulings.