The d ist ri ctcourt observed that the parti es ’ fil ings w ere 1 incons is tenti n thei r s pell ing of the plai nti ff’ s nam e. N oti ng that the plaint iff si gns her nam e “de la Ram a, ” the court conf orm ed its op i n i o n t o th is spelling

. L ike the d istrict cou rt, w e d efer to the plaint iff’ s spel li ng of her nam e.



## 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. 07

- 1156 E LI Z AB ET H D E L A RA MA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I LLINO IS D EPART MENT OF H UMAN S ERVICES, an d M ARY Z UKOWS KI, i nd i vi du al l y a nd in her offi ci alcapaci ty, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

____________ App ea l fr om the Uni ted Sta tes Di str ic t Courtfor the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 CV 5163

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judg e.

____________ A RG UE D M AY 5, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2008

____________ B efore C UDAH Y, P O SNER an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . El i zabe thd e la Ra m a b r o ug ht 1 thi s l aw sui t agai nst he r em plo yeral l eging di scr i m i nati on2 N o. 07

- 1156 i n vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VI Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e ets eq . , i nter fer ence w i th herr i ghts u n d er the Fam i l y a nd M edi calLeave A ct ( FM LA ) , 29 U .S. C. § 2 601 et seq
. a n d c o mmo n l a w d e f a ma t i o n . The d i s t r i c t co u r tg r a n t e d th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n ta n d d e l a R a ma a p p e a l s . We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und De l a Ram a i s a Fi l i pino- A m er i can wh o i s e m plo yed as a r egi ste re d n u rs e a t Chi cago - Read M entalH eal th C en te r (C h ica go -R ea d ), a res id en tia l fac ility f o r m en ta lly i l ladul ts that i s r un by the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fH um an S er vi ce s (the Depa r tment )
. F r o m J an ua r y 2 00 4 to J an ua ry 20 05 , M ar y Zuk o wsk iwas de l a Ra m a’ s su per vi so r. P u r s u a n t t o C h i c a g o - R e a d ’ s l e a v e p o l i c y, d e l a R a ma re cei ved 12 si ck days peryear , w h ich acc rued ata ra te ofo ne si ck day perm onth. D e la R am a ca l l ed i n si ck fro m J ul y 1 9, 2 00 4 th r o ug h Aug us t 1 9, 2 00 4. Al th o ug h s he w as d iag n os ed w ith fibro m ya lgia in e ar ly A u gu st, sh e d id not conve y thi s info rm ati on t o her em p loy erunti lm uch l ate r. Instead , de l a Ram a s pora dica l l y s ubm i tte d notes f ro m p hy s i c i a ns s t a t i ngtha ts he wa s i l l

. F o r e xa mpl e , o n J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , d e l a R a ma c a l l e d i n s i c k b u t s ho wed up at C hicag o-Rea d that afternoon du ring a cow orker’s re t i r e men tp a r t y . Atthe p a r t y s he a t t e mpt e d t o gi ve Z uk ow ski a d o c t or’s note ex p lai nin g tha t she w as su fferi ng from back p ain a n d w as u na ble to return to w ork for on e w ee k. Z u ko w sk i told h er t h a t t h ey sh ou ld di sc us s th e m at te r l at er . W he n de l a Ra m a co ul d not fi nd Z uk ow ski after th e p arty, sh e left the note w ith a cow orker.N o. 07

- 1156 3 A l though de l a Ram a had ex h au st ed hersi ck l eave by th i s po i nt, s he c o nt i nue d t o c al li n s i ckwi thout e xpla i ni ng the natur e o fheri l l ness. On Jul y 2 7, 20 04, d e la Ram a pro vi ded herem plo yer w i th a doctor ’ s note sta ti ng that she w as und er m ed i cal car e a nd co uld notr eturn to work unti lA ugust 1 0, 2004
. The next day she spoke with a H u m an Reso urces Speci al i st w ho t ol d her that i n or de r to re quest m edi cal l e a v e , s he n e e de d t o s ub mi ta wr i t t e n r e qu e s ta nd a com ple ted “CM S 95” f or m . De l a Ram a did not subm i t a w ri tte n re quest ora CM S 95 f or m and did notr etur n to w o r ko n Aug us t1 0
. S he h a d n o fur the r c o nt a c twi th C h ica go -R e ad u n til A u gu st 19 , w h en th e A ss oc iat e D ir e c t o r o f Nu r s i n g c a l l e d h e r t o d i s c u s s h e r ab s e n c e . On Augus t 20 , s he su bm itt ed th r ee mor e do ct o r ’ s no te s, o ne o fwhi chs ta te d tha t sh e co ul d r etur n t o wor ko n August 23
. S he a l s o s ub mi t t e d a n o t e s t a t i ngtha ts he was re q u es t i n g m ed ica l leav e b eg in n in g on Ju ly 1 6, 20 04 u n til an unknown date. The n ote s di d not s tat e herco nd i ti on n or d es c ribe i ts seve ri ty. De l a Ram a di d not r etur n to w or k o n A ugust 2 3. On O cto ber4, 20 04, de la Ram a s ubm i tte d a co m ple ted CM S 95 fo rm , wh i ch expl ai ned that she s uffer ed fro m fibro m yal gi a and a her ni ate d disk

. Chica go- Read re tr oac tiv ely gr anted herl eave to the date o fherl astsi ck day, Se ptem ber2, 20 04. De l a Ram a re tu rned to work on J anuary3, 20 05. A t de l a Ram a’ s re quest, she w as ass i gned to a di ffer en t uni t unde r a ne w supe r vi so r upo n h err etur n. W hi l e de l a Ra m a was abs en t fr o m wor ki n J ul y a nd Augus t, the wor kda y s sh e m issed wer e tr ea te d a s una u-4 N o. 07

- 1156

I n a d d i t i o n t o th e c l a i ms a ti s s u e i n th i s a p p e a l , d e l a R a ma 2 b ro u g ht cla im s un d e r 42 U .S. C
. §§ 198 1 an d 198 3 ag ain st (co n tin u ed ...) thor i zed abs ences ( U A s)
. S he accrued a tot alo f24 U A s. A fterde l a Ram a r etur ned to w or k in 200 5, she, heruni on r e pr e s e nt a t i v e a nd h e r n e w s up e r v i s o r a t t e nd e d a pr e- di sc i pl i na r y meet i ngr eg ar d in gthe se UA s. The parti es decid ed t hat de l a Ram a would notbe disciplined f o r t h e U A s bu t tha t futu re U A s w ou ld trigger a disc i plinarypro ceedi ng ag ai nst he r. De l a Ram a pursued a g ri evance in orderto r em ove the U A s fro m herem plo ym ent r eco rd. A t the thi rd- l eve l gr i evance hear i ng, m anage m ent a nd de l a Ram a’ s uni on r epres entat ives ag re ed th at th e a b se n c es w ou ld rem ain on h er rec or d bu t w ou ld ne ver be us ed in an y d iscipli na ry proc eed ings agains t her. On S ept em be r 9 , 2 00 5, a fte r r ec ei vinga r i g htt o s ue l e t t e r fr o m 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 o n, de l a Ra m a fi l ed th i s l aws ui t al l egingtha t th e Dep ar tm ent had di scr i m i nated aga i nst he r because o fher r a c e a n d n a t i o n a lo r i g i n . In a d d i t i o n, d e l a R a ma c o mpla i ned that the Dep ar tm ent vi ol ate d the FM LA byr efusin g t o a llow h er t o t a k e l e av e fo r a s er iou s m ed ica l co n d itio n . Sh e a lso br ou gh t a co m m o n l aw d efa m at ion cla im aga i nst Zukowski, al l eging that Zukow skif al sel y c l ai m ed that de l a Ram a’ s absence s w er e unauthori zed and that Zuk o wsk imade f al se s ta te m en ts abo uthe r dur i ngthe th i r d- l ev elg r i ev an ce he ar i ng . On J an ua r y 5 , 2 00 7, the di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t fo r the de fen da nt s . T hi s t i mel y a pp e a lf o l l o we d. 2N o. 07

- 1156 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 Z uko w ski and a clai m und er the Am eri cans w ith D is abili ti es Act ( A D A ) a gainstthe D epartm ent. The d is tr ic t c ourt dis m is se d he r § 198 1 an d § 19 83 claim s and d ispo sed of her A D A claim on s um m ar y j udgm en t
. De l a Ram a doe s no t a p p eal the d istrict cou rt’ s d ispo sition o f the se claim s. I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew a gran t o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , “ v i e wi n gal lf a c t s a n d th e r e a s o n ab l e i n fe r e n c e s d r a wn th er efr o m i n the l i g htmos t f avorabl e to the no nm o ving party
. ” Bur ne t tv. LF W Inc . , 472 F.3d 471 , 477 (7th C ir. 2006). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te on ly “ w h er e ‘t h er e is no g enui ne i ss ue as t o a ny mate r i alf ac t an d .

. . the moving partyi s e nti tl ed to a j u dgm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ’ ” Id

. ( quoti ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( c) )
. A nonm oving p ar ty cannot defe a ta mo t i o n f o r s ummar y j ud g men twi th b a r e a l l e gatio n s. Sm ith v. P o tter, 445 F.3d 100 0, 1006 (7 th Cir. 2006); se e also Roz skow iak v. Vill. o f Arl ington Heights , 41 5 F
. 3d 608, 612 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( to defe at sum m ar y j ud gm ent, n on m ov in g p ar ty m u s t ad d u c e m or e t h an “a sc in tilla of evi dence” in supp or t o fi ts cl ai m )
. Rather, a party opposi ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent m ust p re sent “ev i dence on whi chthe j ur y c o ul d r ea so nabl y fi nd f o r the no nm o ving party
. ” Rozs kowia k, 41 5 F
. 3d at 612.

A
. E m p loy m en t d isc rim in at ion cla im Tit l e VI Io f t he Ci vi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64 prohibi ts an em plo yer fro m disc ri m i nati ng aga i nst a n em plo yee6 N o. 07

- 1156

A pl ai nt iffw ho p ro c ee ds unde r the di re c tm ethod o fpr oof 3 m ust add uce dire ct o r c ir cum st anti al evidence that s how s that he r em pl oye r’ s dec i s i on t o t ake anadve rs e em pl oym en tac t i on a g a in st h er w a s m o tiv a te d b y a d isc ri m in a to ry p u rp o se . R hod es , 35 9 F .3d at 50 4. U nd er th e ind irect m e t h od , a p lain tiff m u st es tabli sh a prim a f aci e c ase of d iscr im inat ion by show ing that s he i s a me mbe r o fa p r o t e c t e d c l a s s , th a ts h e wa s p e r f o rm i ng he r j ob s at i s f ac t or i l y, thatsh e suffer ed a n a dver s e em pl oym ent act ion and that she w as tr eated les s f avorab ly than sim ila rl y sit u a te d in d iv id u a ls. Id

. “ If the plaint iffes tabli shes a p ri m a f aci e c ase , the em ployer m ust art ic ulate a l egit im ate, non - di s c ri m i nat or y r ea s on f or i t s e m pl oym en tac t i on, and in re sp o n se th e p la in tiff m u st p ro v e th a t the em p lo y e r ’s p ro ffer ed n on- d iscr i m i nat or y r ea s on i s a pre t ex tf or di s c ri m i nati on. ” Id

. “w i th r espectto hi s co m pensati on, t er m s, co nd i ti ons, o r p rivi leges of em p loym en t, bec au se of such i nd iv idu al’s r a c e , c o l o r, r e l i g i o n, s e x, o r n a t i o na lo r i g i n. ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. “ A p l a i n t i ffma y p r o v e i n t e n t i o n a le mplo ym ent di scr i m i nati on under Ti tl e VI Ibyusi ng ei ther the ‘d i re ct m etho d’ o r ‘ i nd i re ct m etho d.’ ” R hod es v. Ill
. D ep’ tof Tr ans p. , 35 9 F
. 3d 498, 50 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Both 3 metho ds r e qu i r e the p l a i nt i fft o s ho w that she s uffe r e d a m ate ri al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on. Id

. The di str i ct c ou rtco n c lu d ed t h at d e la R am a d id n otsu ffer an y c og n izabl e adv er se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n a nd thus , tha t sh e coul d not pro ceed o n herdi scr i m i nati on cl ai m under e i t h er th e d ire c t o r in d ire c t m et h od of p ro of. O n ap p ea l, sh e di spu tes th i s fi ndi ng, a r g ui ngtha t th e r ec o r di ng an d p re ser vati on o f24 U A s o n herr eco rd co nsti tutes a m ate ri al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on. W e di sag re e.N o. 07

- 1156 7 W e hav e e xplained that i n or der t o be a cti onabl e, “a dve r se a ct i o ns mustb e m at er i al l y a dve r se . . . mean i ng m or e than a ‘ m er e inconveni ence oran a l ter ati on o fj ob r e s po ns ib i l i t i e s . ’ ” O est v. Ill. D ep’t o f C o rr. , 24 0 F
. 3d 605, 612 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( quoti ng Crady v . Li b e r ty Nat’ l B ank & Tru s tCo. , 993 F.2d 1 32 , 1 36 (7 th C ir. 1 99 3)). “[A ] ‘m at er ially advers e c h an ge m i ght b e ind i cate d by a te rm i nati on o f em p loy m en t, a d e m ot ion ev id en c ed by a d ec re as e in w age o r sal ar y, a l ess di stingui shed ti tle, a m ate ri all oss of b en efit s, sig n ifica n tly d im in ish ed m at er ial re sp on sibi l i ti es , o r o th eri ndi ce s tha t m i g htb e uni que t o a pa r ti cul arsi tuati on. ’ ” Id

. a t6 1 2

- 1 3 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. A n e mp loy ee’ s unhapp i ness w i th herem plo yer ’ s co nd uct o r d ec isio n is in su fficie n t to su p p or t a cla im u n d er T itle V II. S e e Traylorv . Brown , 295 F.3d 783 , 788 (7th C ir. 2002). Rather, “[ a] t m i ni m um , the em plo yee m ust be abl e t o show a q u an tit at ive or q u alit at ive ch an ge in t h e t er m s o r c on d iti ons ofem plo ym ent. ” Hayw ood v. Lu ce ntTe ch s . , Inc . , 32 3 F. 3d 524, 53 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. Thus, we have c oncl ud ed that negat i ve perf or m ance e val uati ons, st anding al one, ar e n otco gn iza b l e ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n s. Se e, e . g. , Suble tt v. John Wil ey & Sons, Inc. , 4 63 F.3d 73 1, 739 (7th Cir. 20 06 ); Beamon v. M ars hal l & Ilsl ey Tr us tCo. , 41 1 F
. 3d 854, 86 2 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ); Luc as v. Chi
. Tr ans i tAut h. , 36 7 F
. 3d 714, 73 1 (7th C ir. 20 04 ); Sm ar tv. Bal l St at eU ni v. , 89 F. 3d 437, 44 2 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ). Sim ilar ly, inRibando v. U nite d Airli nes, Inc. , 20 0 F
. 3 d 5 0 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) , we he l d tha t a “ l e t t e r of c on c er n ” t h at w as p lac e d i n th e p lain tiff’s p er so n n el file afte r s he was i nv es ti g at ed f o r al l eg edly m ak i nga ha r as sing sexualco m m ent di d not co nsti tute a m ate ri al l y a dvers e em p loy m en t a c tio n . Id

. at51 1.8 N o. 07

- 1156 W e di scern no r eas on t o tr eat t h e U A s in thi s ca se differ entl y than w e hav e t re ate d negati ve perfo rm ance evaluati ons orth e i ncl usi on o fa l ett ero fco ncer n i n an empl o y ee ’ s per so nne lfi l e. Al thoug h w e ha ve de fi ne d the ter m “a dverse actio n” br oadl y a nd have em phasi zed th e im p or ta n c e o fc o n sid er in g t h e fa c ts of ea c h ca se in as se ss in g w h et h er an ad ve rs e a c tio n is m at er ial, s e eBrys on v. C hi. StateU niv
. , 9 6 F
. 3d 91 2, 916 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) , the un di s pu t e d f a c t s o fthi s c a s e pe r s ua de us tha tthe UAs do not i n and ofthem sel ves c onsti tute a m ate ri al l y a dvers e a c t i o n. Pur s u a n tt o th e a g r e e me n tr e a c h e d b y d e l a R a ma and he r em plo yer at the thi rd- l eve l gr i evance hear i ng, th e U As o n h e r r e c o r d d o n o th a v e a n y e ffe c to n th e t e r ms orco nd i ti ons ofherem plo ym ent. De l a Ram a a tte m pts to r ely o n Ru s s e l l v. Bd. of Trs . of t he Uni v. of Ill
. at C hi. , 24 3 F. 3d 336 ( 7th Cir. 2 001) , to support her conte nti on that th e U A s c on st itu te a m at er ially ad ve rs e a c t i o n . B u t in R uss el l , we co nc l ude d tha t a fi ve - daydi sc i pl i na r y s us pen si on was m ate ri al l y ad ve rs e be cause Russel ll ostfi ve days o fpay and her once- spotl ess r eco rd “no w i ncl ud es a f o r m alfi ndi ngtha t sh e ‘ f al sif ied’ he r t i m e r ec o r ds an d com m i tted ‘thefto fse rv i ces. ’ ” Id

. at 341. The discip lina ry ac ti o n in Ru ss el l v i si te d t an g ibl e co ns eque nc es o n the p lainti ff, an i m port ant f act that dist i ngui shes that case fro m t h e presento ne. In thi s ca se, de l a Ram a has not al l ege d any m ate ri alchange i n the c on dit i ons ofher empl o y m en t

— sh e was no t fi r ed orde m o te d, s he suffer ed no financi alconsequences and her re sponsibi l i ti es have not c hanged. Because de l a Ram a has notal l ege d that any t angibl e co nsequences re sul ted fro m the U A s, Luc as , 3 6 7 F
. 3 d a t 7 3 1 , we a ffi r m th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n-N o. 07

- 1156 9

c l u s i o n th a ts h e d i d n o ts u ffe r a ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e e mplo ym ent a cti on a nd i ts entr y o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t fo r th e d e fe n d a n t s o n h e r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.

B
. FM L A cla im The FM LA enti tl es el i gibl e e m plo yee s to u p to twel ve wee k s o fl eave duringa ny t wel ve - m o nth pe r i o d i fthe em p loy ee is u n ab le t o p e r f o r m t h e fu n c tio n s o f h er p os itio n o n a c c ou n t o f a se riou s h ea lth co n d itio n . Se e Har r e l l v. U. S
. Po s t a l S e r v. , 4 45 F
. 3d 91 3, 9 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ci ting 29 U
. S. C. § 2 612( a) ( 1) )
. I t a l so prohibi ts an em plo yer fro m i n te rfe ring with an em plo yee ’ s a tte m pt to exer ci se h er r i g h t t o m ed ica l leav e. B urne tt, 472 F.3d at47 7. In or d er to p re va il on h e r F M L A int er fer en c e c laim , d e la Ram a was r equi re d to show the f ol l owing: ( 1) [ s] he was el i gib le forthe FM LA ’ s pro tect i ons, ( 2) [ he r ] em pl o y erw as co ve r ed bythe F M LA , ( 3) [ s] he w as enti tl ed to l eave under the FM LA , ( 4) [s ] he pro

vi ded su ffi ci en t no ti ce o f[ he r ] i nt en t to t ak e l ea ve , a nd ( 5) [ her] em plo yerdeni ed [ her] FM LA bene fi ts to whi c h [ s ] he wa s e nt i t l e d. Id

. T h e d i str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that de l a Ram a f ai l ed to provi de suffi ci ent no ti ce o fherintent to tak e F M LA l eave . W e a gr ee. A lthough an em plo yee i s no t r equi re d to re fer to the F M LA i n or der t o gi ve noti c e of h eri ntent to tak e F M LA l ea ve , “ th e no ti ce m us t su cc ee d i n a l er tingthe em p loy er to th e s er iou sn es s o f t h e h ea lth co n d itio n .” St e ve ns on v. HyreEle c. Co. , 5 05 F.3d 720, 72 5 (7th C ir. 2007). Call i ng i n si ck w i thout provi ding add i ti onal in f or m ati on10 N o. 07

- 1156 d oe s n otp ro vid e s u fficie n t n ot ice u n d er th e F M L A
. B urnet t, 47 2 F
. 3d at 479; C o l l i n s v. N TN -B o w er C o rp . , 27 2 F
. 3d 10 06 , 1 00 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( “’ S i ck ’ do es no t i m pl y ‘ a se r i o us heal th co nd i ti on. ’ ”)
. Thi s i s t rue e ven ifthe em plo yee provi d es h erem plo yerwith a docto r’ s no te i fthe note do es no t co nv eythe s er i o us ne ss o fhe r medi ca lc o ndi ti o n. See P hill ips v. Q uebe cor World RA I, Inc. , 450 F. 3d 308, 31 1- 12 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. As the di st r i ctc o ur t no te d, duringthe per i o d when de l a Ra m a ca l l ed i n si ck i n J uly an d Au g u s t, s h e n e v e r i n d i c a t e d th a ts h e s u ffe r e d f r o m a condi ti on that would r equ ire an e xtended p er i od of l ea ve. T he F M LA ’ s no ti ce b ur deni s no t o ne r o us b ut ne i th eri s i t i l l us o ry. De l a Ra m a di d no t pr o vi de do cum en ta tio n of h er fibro m ya lgia u n til O c to b er 4 , 200 4. U n til th at poi nt, de l a Ram a info rm ed herem plo yero nl y that sh e was s i ck, whi chi s i ns uffi ci en t to s ug g est thats he su ffer ed fr o m a n F M LA

- qua l i fy i ngc o ndi ti o n. We h a v e r e c o g n i z e d th a ti n s o me s i t u a t i o n s , “ a n e mplo yee m ay be e xcused f ro m expre ssing a need f or m edi ca ll ea ve , ” s uchas “when ci r cumst an ce s pr o vi de th e em plo yerwith s uffi ci ent n ot ice ofthe need f orm edi cal l eave . ” B urne tt, 472 F.3d at47 9; see also B yrn e v. A vo n P rod s., Inc. , 32 8 F
. 3d 379, 38 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 3) (“dram ati c change i n behavi or ” m ay provi de noti ce o f a ser i ous m edi cal probl em ). D e l a Ram a co ntends thatthe ci rcum sta nces surr ounding her abse nces shoul d h av e pu t the Departm en t o n n o ti ce tha t sh e ne ede d t o t ake lea ve o n a cc o unt ofa ser i ous m edi calco nd i ti on. In supp or t o fthi s a rgum ent, she c i tes an inc i dent thato ccurr ed i n M ay orJ une 200 4 i n w hi ch she w as t ak en fro m work to the e m er gency r o o m . Ba se d o n thi s i nc i den t, s he c o nt en ds that w hen s heN o. 07

- 1156 11 b eg an ca llin g in sic k t o w or k inJu ly, h er em p loy er sh ou ld have known that she w as suffer i ng fro m an F M LA

- quali fyi ngc o nd i t i o n. T hi s ar gu men tdo e s n o twa s h. T he F M LA does not re quir e e m plo yer s t o pla y S herl ockH ol m es, sc anni nga n e m pl o y ee ’ s wor khi st o r y f o r c l ue s as t o the un d isclosed , tru e reason f or an em p loyee’s absen ce. Th ere i s s i m plynothi ng i n the re cor d to sugge st the k i nd o f “d ram atic, observ able ch an ge in [de la Ram a’s] w ork perf or m ance o r p h ysic alco nd i ti on” that w oul d excuse her fro m f ai l i ng to no ti fy the Departm ent o fherneed for FM L A lea ve . B urne tt, 47 2 F
. 3d at 480. Further, i n l i ght ofthe f act that de l a Ram a was perm i tte d to tak e s eve nteen w eek s o fl eave

— fi ve w eek s m or e than the tw el ve w eek s the Departm ent was requi re d to gi ve her un de r the F M LA

— we fi nd i t di ffi cul t to s ee ho w the Dep ar tm ent int er fer ed w i th herenti tl em ent t o l eave at all. In fa c t, a t o r a l a r gu m en t h er at to rn ey st at ed th at d e la Ram a was notat tem pti ng to ta ke FM LA l eave wh en sh e call ed i n s i cki n J ul y a nd Augu st
. Thi s puz zl i ng con cess ion furth er obsc ure s th e bas is for d e la R a m a’s F M LA i nt er fer en ce c l aim si nc e i t i s undi spu te d tha t th e Dep ar tm ent g ra nted h er FM LA l eave aftershe subm itt ed herwri tte n re quest in Octobe r. In any eve nt, be ca us e de l a Ra m a received FMLA l ea ve a fte r pr o vi di ng no t i c e i n Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 4 , a nd b e c a us e s he di d no tp r o v i de ad eq ua te not ice p r ior to tha t d ate, w e affirm the cou rt’s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n to n th i s c l a i m.
C
. D efa m at ion cla im Befo re the dist ri ct c ou rt, de l a Ram a a l l ege d that Zuk o wsk ide f amed h ero n two o cc as i o ns . First, dur i ng12 N o. 07

- 1156 J ul y a nd Augus t2 0 0 4 , wh e n Zuko w sk ia l l e g e dl y ma de unfav or abl e s tat em ents about de l a Ram a’ s absen c es to som e o fherco - w or ker s. The di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that I l l i noi s’ o ne- yea r sta tute oflim i tat i ons f ordef am ati on b a r r ed th e c laim ba se d on th es e s ta te m en ts sin c e d e la Ra m a fi l ed he r l aws ui t i n S ept embe r 20 05
. The se co nd i nc i den t o fde f amat i o n s uppo se dl y o cc ur r ed dur i ngthe thi rd- l eve lgr i evance hear i ng, wh en Zukows kito l d “f al se sto ri es” abou t de l a Ram a’ s be havi orwh i l e s he was enj oying the unauthor i zed abs ences and charac ter i zed d e la R am a’s d octors’ not es as d efi cient
. Th e d istri ct cou rt c on c lu d ed th at t h e s ta te m en ts “c on c er n ed on ly d e la Ram a’ s f ai l ure to navi gat e thro ugh the properpro cedures a n d pa pe r wo r kth a tw o u l d e n t i t l e h e r t o e x t e n d e d t i me off,” and thus, “[ did] notf al li nto any o fthe cate gor i es of defam ation p e r s e ” un d er I ll inois l aw . De l a Ra m a’s appeal o fthe cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ary j u d gm ent o n her d efa m at ion cla im is co n c lu so ry an d u tt er ly l a c k i n g in a nyc i t a t i o n t o the a pp l i c ab l e l a w o r t o f a c t s i n the r e c o r d. T h u s, sh e h as w aiv ed th is iss u e. Se eBe am on , 41 1 F
. 3d at 862 (“ [ U]nsu p p orted and un d evelop ed argum en ts are w aived

. ”).

I I I . Concl usio n F o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we A FFIRM the j ud gm en t o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

9- 2- 08