T he H ono rabl e Edm ond E. Cha ng, Dis t ri c tJ udge ofthe  U nited States D istrict Co u rt for the N or the rn D istrict of Il lino is, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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

- 3387 S VE T LA NAA R I Z ANOVS KA, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. W AL -M ARTS TORE S, I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 09 C1404

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 14, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UNE 12, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f J udg e, B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e, an d C HAN G , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Svetl ana Ari zanov ska fi l ed an acti on a gainst he r em plo yer, al l egin g th at she was di scri m i nated ag ai nst b ecause o fherpre gn an cy and her2 N o. 11

- 3387 nati onalo ri gi n. S he added stat e- l aw cl ai m s o fi ntenti onal and ne g l i g e nt i nfl i c t i o n o f e mot i o na l di s t r e s s . Th e di str i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent a gainst he r on b o th h e rfe d e r a la n d s t a t e - l a w c l a i ms . We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Svetl ana Ari zanov ska was born i n M acedoni a a nd was a form er em p loyee ofW al- M art Stores, I nc . ( “W al- M art”). There, she w or ked par t- ti m e, thr ee d ays a w eekas a stocke r on the o ver ni ght s hi ft. A st ock eri s e xpected to sto ck, zo ne, pro cess r et u rns, and cl ean the st or e. S i nce sto ck i ngr e qu i r e s l i ft i ngh e a v y i t e ms, the r e i s a r e qu i re m en t th ats to ck er s be a ble to l i ft up t o 5 0 po unds

. The assist a nt m an ager, N yra B uc kn er, w as A rizanovs ka’s pr i m ary s upe r vi so ra nd was i n cha r g e o fpr o vi di ng A rizanovs ka w ith he r j ob assign m en ts. A rizanovs ka’s su per vi so rdur i ngthe ni g hts hi ft was Eddi e H o us to n. I n N ove m ber20 08, A ri za n ovs ka l earned that she was pr egna nt
. A fte re xpe r i en cings o m e va g i na lb l ee di nga nd spott i ng, she w ent t o her doctorthr ee ti m es i n J anuary. So m eti m e a fterJ anuary12 , she tol d Bu c knerthat her doctorto l d h er thatshe coul d not l i ft m or e than 20 p ou nd s. B uc kn er th en assign ed A rizanovs ka t o w o rk i n the baby f oo d and toothbrush a i sl es. A ri zanov ska exper i enced so m e bl eedi ng ag ai n on J anuary24, 200 9. The next day, Buckner ass i gned her to w or k in A i sl e 3
. A rizan ov ska co m pla i ned to H ousto n about bei ng as si gned to thatai sl e. On Januar y 2 5, she saw som e m or e spotting, and on J a n u ar y 2 7, w h ile w or kin g a t h er oth er j ob , sh e e x p er i-N o. 11

- 3387 3 enced bl eedi ng y et aga in . A t thi s point, A ri zanov ska w en t im m edi at ely t o he rdo ct o ra nd l ea r ne d tha t sh e ha d mi s c a r r i e d. In M ay 2009 , A ri zanov ska di sco ver ed that she was p regn an t again, an d a roun d M ay 16, provid ed W al- M art w ith a m ed ical restriction; sh e w as no t to l if t m ore th an1 0 po unds

. As a r es ul t o fhe rmedi ca lr es tr i ct i o n, Ari za no vs k a co ul d no l o ng er p er f o r m the e ss en ti all i fting functi ons ofherposi ti on a s a st ock er . A ri zanov ska as k ed th ats he be tr an sfer r ed to a po si ti o n whe r e sh e onl y fol ded cl othe s. But no s uch posi ti on e xi sts ; i n f act, empl o y ees w ho f o l d c l o th es a r e al so e xpe ct ed to do wnl oad st ock

. On M ay1 8, pe r so nne lmana g erLua nn Chr i sty co nsul ted with hum an r eso urces m anage r Cu rt i s M ace; th ey ag re ed th a t u n d er W al-M ar t’s A c c om m od at ion in Em pl o y men t Po l i c y, Ar i z a no v s k a wo ul d ha v e t o t ake a l ea v e o f ab s e nc e b e c a us e s he wa s un ab l e t o pe r f o r m her j ob dut i es . W al

- M ar t’ s Acco m m o dat i o n in Empl o y m en t Pol i cy sta tes : I fyo u have a m edi c al c ond i ti on that i s no t a di sabi l i ty, b utwhi chpr ev en ts y o u fr o m pe r f o r m i ng yourj ob, incl ud i ng p re gnancy, you m ay be e l i gibl e for a job aid or en v i r o n m en ta l ad j u st m en t u n d er th is pol i cy, a l eave of abse nce un der the L eave o fA bsence Pol i c y, o ry o u a l s o ma y r e qu e s tt r a ns fe rt o a no ther op en p os itio n u n d er th e A ss oc iat e T ra n sfe r P olic y. . . . J ob ai d oren vironm entaladj ustm ent m eans a chang e i n pract i ces orthe w or k e nvi ro nm ent which i s bo th eas i l y a chi evab l e a nd wh i ch w ill hav e no nega ti ve4 N o. 11

- 3387 i m pact o n the busi ness. Thi s type of a ccom m odati on does noti n c lu d e cre ating a j ob, l i ght duty or tem pora ryal ternati ve du ty, o r re ass i gnm ent. O n M ay 20 , A riz a n o v s k a to ld C h ris ty th at sh e w ou ld no t t a k e a l e a v e o fab s e n c e a n d th a ts h e wa n t e d “ l i g ht du ty” ; speci fi cal l y, she w anted to f ol d cl othe s. Chri sty to l d Ari za no vs ka th ats he c o ul d no t f o l d c l o th es a nd that she would have to ta ke a l eave o f absence unti lher doctorr el eas ed herfro m her m edi calr est ri cti ons that preve nted herfro m per f or m i ng herj ob du ti es. A ri zanov sk a d i d not r etur n to work at W al

- M ar t a fter M ay2 0, 2 00 9, a nd a l i tt l e o ve ra month l at ers he m is ca r r i ed ag ain. S he fi l ed a l aws ui t ag ains t W al

- M ar t sh ortly thereafter. The sui t cl ai m ed that W al

- M ar t had vio l ate d her ri ghts und er Tit l e VI I of the Civi l Rights A ct, as am en d ed by the Pr egnancyDis cri m i nati on Act. S he co m pla i ned that W al

- M ar t f ai l ed to acc om m odate her und eri ts A ccom m od at ion in E m p loy m en t P olic y b ecause o f h e rp r e g n a n c y a n d / o rn a t i o na l o r i g i n . S h e a l s o c l a i ms that W al

- M ar t r eta l i ated against he r f orfi l i ng a charg e ofdi scr i m i nati on with the Equa lEmpl o y men t Opp or tuni ty Comm i ss i o n ( “EEOC” )
. F i na l l y, Ari zano vs k a br o ug ht seve ral state -l aw clai m s against W al- M art

— i ntenti onal an d ne g l i g en t i nfl i ct i o n o fe m o ti o na ldi str es s, ne g l i g en t supervi si on, and l i abi l i ty f ori ts em plo yee s’ act i ons und er th e the ory of resp ond eat su p e r io r . Th e d istri ct cou rt gr an te d su m m ar y jud gm en t a ga in st A riz an ov sk a o n all her federa land sta te-l aw cl ai m s. S he ti m el y a pp eal ed that j ud gm ent.N o. 11

- 3387 5 I I . DI S C US S I ON W e m u st d et er m in e w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou r t err ed in gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofW al

- M ar t o n A rizanovs ka’s clai m s. W e review de n ovo a d istri ct cou rt’s gr an t o f su m m ar y ju d gm en t, vie w in g t h e fa c ts an d all re aso nabl e infe re nces i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the no nm oving party

— h er e, A riz an ov sk a. Hall v. Nalco Co. , 53 4 F
. 3d 644, 64 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 08)
. W e hav e p re vio u sly h eld th at “a fac tu al d isp u te is ‘ge n u in e’ o n ly if a re aso nabl e j ury coul d find f orei therparty. ” S MS D em ag A k t i eng esellscha ft v. M a terial Scis. C o rp . , 56 5 F
. 3d 365, 368 (7th C ir. 2009). W e turn now to A ri za n ov ska ’ s cl ai m s, ta ki ng ea ch th eo r y o fr ec o ve r y i n tur n.

A . Pr egnancy and N at i onal O r i gi n D i scr i m i nati on A ri zanov ska cl ai m s that s he was f or ced out ofherj ob at W al-M ar t a s a res u lt of p re gn an c y a n d n a tio n al or igin di sc r im in at i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d, fi ndi ng t ha t sh e di d n o tma k e o u ta p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o fd i s c r i min at ion. A ri zanov ska m ay prove herdi scr i m i nati on ca se u n d er e ith er th e d ire c t o r in d ire c t m et h od , We b e rv. U ni v. R esearch Ass ’ n, Inc . , 6 2 1 F
. 3 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , b ut h as ele c t e d t o p u rs u e h er d isc rim in at ion ca se on ly un de rthe i nd i r e c tp r o o fme tho d. U nd erthe indir ect m etho d, A ri zanov ska i s r equi re d to produ c e e vi dence es tabl i shi ng a pri m a f aci e ca se ofdi scrim in at i on: ( 1) thatshe w as a m em bero fa prot ecte d cl ass ; ( 2) thatshe w as perf or m i n g h erj ob sat i sf acto ri l y;6 N o. 11

- 3387 ( 3) tha t sh e su ffer ed ana d ver se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n; an d (4 ) thatW al

- M ar t t re ate d a si m i l ar l y- si tuate d in d ividu al outsid e A rizanovs ka’s prot ecte d class m ore favorab ly
. D e arv. Sh i ns e ki, 578 F. 3d 605, 609 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 ). I f A ri zanov ska sa ti sfi es thos e e l em ents, the burden then shi fts to W al

- M ar t to i denti fy a l egi ti m ate , nondi scr i m i nato ry rea so n for th e a c tio n ta ke n . S t o c k we l l v . Ci ty of Ha rvey, 597 F.3d 895 , 901 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). A nd i f W al- M art adv an ce s a no ndi sc r i m i na to r y r ea so n fo rr equiring A ri zanov ska to ta ke a l eave o fabs ence, sum m ar y j ud gm ent woul d onl y b e e rr oneo us i fA ri zanov ska pro du ced evi dence thatthe proffer ed re aso n w as a pretext f or i m pr o perdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Id

. W al- M a r t a g r ees th at A rizanovs ka is a m em ber of a p rotecte d class bu t argu es th at A rizanovs ka can not satisfy th e othe r three p rongs of th e prim a facie c a s e . Sum m ary j udg m en t i s ap pr o pr i at e i fAri za no vs k a ca nno t demons t r a t e a n y o n e e l e me n to fth e p r i ma f a c i e c a s e , so we on ly n ee d ad d re ss th e fo u rt h p r o n g , a n ob vio u s los er . See Le wis v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 496 F.3d 645 , 652 (7th C ir. 2007). I n or der t o m eet the f ourth prongo fthe pri m a f aci e ca se, A ri zanov ska m ust i denti fy a si m i l ar l y- si tuate d em plo yee ou tsid e her p rotecte d classes w h o w as treate d m ore fav or ab ly. Shi ns e ki, 57 8 F
. 3d at 609. A ri zanovska has not d one thi s. To s up portbo th herpre gnancy and nati onal or i gi n dis cri m inati on cl ai m s, A ri zanov ska co ntends that tw o pregnant, A fri can- A m er i can em plo yee s w er e t re ate d m or e fa vo ra b ly

— i
. e. , thatbec ause ofthei r pregnanci es and race theywere al l owe d to w or k in ai sl es w i th l ess heavy i tem s. Bu t the evi dence contr adic ts that. Fi rs t,N o. 11

- 3387 7 nei thero ftho se em plo ye es was ass i gned to l i ght- du ty w ork. Secon d , neith er em p loye e prov ided W al- M art w i th te m pora rym edi calr est ri cti ons that preve nted th em fr o m do i ngthe i rj o b dut i es . Be ca us e the r e i s no basi s t o concl ud e that those em p loy ees were tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y, she can not m ake o ut a pri m a f aci e ca se f o rdi sc r i m i na ti o n. M or eov er, with re spect to her pregnancy di scr i m i nati on cl ai m , A rizanovs ka has no t i denti fi ed a s i m i l ar l ys i t ua t e d e mpl o y ee out s i deherpro tect ed cl ass

— i
. e. , no np regn an t. B oth of th e em p loyees she i d en t if ied w ere pregnant, and so we cannot i nfe r pregn ancy disc ri m i nati on o n that basi s because ther e i s no co m pari son be twe enthe t r ea tmento fpr egna nte m pl o y ee s ve r su s no npr egna nte m pl o y ees. T he pur po se o fthe “ si m i l ar l y - si tu
ated ” com p arator is to en su re that allother variables are disc ounted so thatdi scr i m i nati on ca n be i nfe rr ed. “ If a n empl o y ert ak es a n a ct i o n aga i ns t o ne e m pl o y ee i n a p ro te c te d cla ss bu t n otan ot h er ou ts id e t h at cla ss , an d all el se i s e qual between the com parat or s, we can i nfe r d iscr i m i nati on, atl eas t pr ovi si onal l y a t the pri m a fac ie st age o fthe anal ysi s. ” Si l ve r m an v. Bd. of Educ

. , 6 3 7F. 3d 729, 742 (7th C ir. 2011). T he “sim il arly- situ a t ed ” inqu iry i s a “fl exibl e, co m m on- se n se o ne, ” Henry v. Jon es , 50 7 F. 3d 558, 564 ( 7th Cir
. 2007 ) , but i t at l eas t re qu ire s t h at thep l a inti ffnam e a co m parat oro utsi de herpro tect ed cl ass . A ri zanov ska al so ar gues that W al

- M ar t’ s Accom m odati on Pol i cy gi ves prefer enti altr eat m ent t o an em plo yee w ho i s i nj ur e d o ut s i de o fwo r ko v e ra p r e g na ntwom an w hose co nd i ti on was at tain ed o u tsi de ofwork. That8 N o. 11

- 3387

ar gum ent, however, i s r eally a chal l enge to the pol i cy i tse l fand i s no t a pp l i cabl e when provi ng a discri m i natio n ca se u n d er th e ind ire c t m et h od

. A n d an yw ay , T itle V II d oes not requ ire th at sort of acc om m od a t ion
. W al- M art did notcr eat e a l i ght duty posi ti on f orA ri zanov ska b ec au se , ac c or d in g t o its A c c om m od at ion P olic y, it woul d no t cr ea te th at po si ti o n f o r any no n- pr egna nt em plo yee w ho was und erm edi calr est ri cti ons. That p olic y is c on sis te n t w ith T itle V II’s req u ire m en ts
. See Se r e dny jv. Be ve r l y Heal t hc are, LL C, 65 6 F
. 3d 540, 54 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ [ A] n e mpl o y e ri s n o tr e qu i r e d t o pr o v i de an ac c om m od at ion to a p re gn an t e m p loy e e u n les s it p ro vid es th e s a m e a c c om m od at ion to its sim ilar ly situat ed non -pregn an t em p loyees.”)

. I n shor t, bec ause A ri zanov skah as n ot shown that si mi l a r l y - s i t ua t e d e mpl o y e e s o ut s i de o fh e rp r o t e c ted cl ass es w er e t re ate d m or e f avo rabl y, s h e has f ai l ed to es ta b lish a p r i m a fa c ie c as e o f rac ial or n at ion al or igin disc ri m i nati on un der the i nd i re ct m etho d. W e fi nd , as the di str i ct c ourtdi d, that sum m ary j ud gm ent was p rop er. W e nee d not reach th e issue of p retex t, as p lai nt iff ha s f ai l ed to s ta te a pr i m a f ac i e ca se o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Se eCowan v. Gl e nb r ook S e c. Se r v. , Inc . , 12 3 F .3d 43 8, 44 5 (7th C ir. 1997).

B. R et al i at i on A ri zanov ska co ntends thatW al

- M art r eta l i ate d against he ra fte rs he fi l ed he rEEOC c ha r g e o fdi scri m i na ti o n. U nl i ke her disc ri m i nati on cl ai m , w hi ch she pu rs ued und er th e in d ire c t m et h od , A riz an ov sk a n ow relie s e x c lu siv elyN o. 11

- 3387 9

o n th e d i r e c tme th o d

. T h a tme a n s s he ca n o v e r c o me su m m ary j ud gm ento nl y b y s ho wi ngtha t: ( 1) s he engag ed i n sta tutor i l y pr otect ed acti vi ty; ( 2) she suffer ed a m aterial l y a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n; a nd ( 3) the p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y i s c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d t o th e a d v e r s e e mp loy m en t a c tio n . D avi s v. Time War ne rCab l eof Se
. Wi s co ns i n , L
. P. , 651 F. 3d 664, 677 (7th Cir. 2011). The r e i s no que st i o n h er e r eg ar di ngthe fi r ste l ement ofthe pri m a fa ci e ca se. A ri zanov ska fi l ed an EEO C charg e ofdi scr i m i nati on

— cl ear l y a pro tect ed acti vit y under T i t l e V I I
. T h e s e c o n d e l e me n t, h o we v e r, r e qu i r e s s o me disc ussi on. A ri zanov ska i denti fi es her ad verse em plo ym ent a c tio n as W al

- M ar t pl aci ng hero n an unpaid l eave o fa b se n c e. B u t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd et er m in ed th at th is was no t ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. W e hav e defi ned ad ve rs e e m plo ym ent qui te bro adly

. M cDonne l l v. Ci s ne r os , 84 F.3d 256, 258-59 ( 7th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). B u t f o r an em p loy m en t a c tio n to be ad ve rs e, “t h e c h all enged a c tio n m ust be o ne thata re aso nabl e e m plo yee wo u l d fi n d t o b e ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e s u c h th a tth e e mpl o y ee woul d b e di ss ua ded fr o m e ng ag ing i n the prot ecte d acti vity .” Roney v . Il l i nois D ep’ tof Tr ans p. , 474 F. 3d 4 55 , 4 61 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( ci ti ng B url ington N
. & Santa Fe R y. C o. v. White, 54 8 U.S. 53, 62 ( 2006 ) )
. W e hav e note d t hat m ate ri al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti ons can be c at eg o r i ze d i nt o thr ee g r o ups o f ca se s i nv o l ving : ( 1) the em plo yee ’ s cur re nt weal th such a s co m pensati on, fringe be ne fi ts , a nd fin an ci alt er m s o fe m pl o y m en t i nc l udi ng te r m i na ti o n; ( 2) the e m pl o y ee ’ s ca r eer p ro spe ct s thus i m pacti ng the em plo yee ’ s future w eal th; and ( 3) change s10 N o. 11

- 3387 to the e m pl o y ee ’ s wor kc ond i ti o ns i nc l udi ngs ubj ec ting her to “hum i l i ating, degr ading, unsafe, unheal thful, o r oth erw ise signifi can t neg ative alteration in [her] w ork pla ce e nvi ro nm ent. ” Her rnrei te r v. C hicago H ous. Auth

. , 31 5 F
. 3d 74 2, 744

- 45 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( i nt erna lc i ta ti ons a nd qu otations om itted ). Bei ng f or ced to ta ke an unpaid l ea ve o fabs ence cer tainl y f al l s int o the fi rs t ca teg or y o fm ate ri aladver se em plo ym ent a cti ons. Yet W al

- M ar t a rgues that i ts offer of a n u n p a id lea ve of ab se n c e w as n otm at er ially advers e because i t w as consi ste nt w i th its A ccom m odati on Em plo ym ent Pol i cy; the choi ce was e i therte rm i nate A ri zan ovs ka orpl ace her on a n unp ai d l eave o fabs ence bec au se the r e wer e no o th ero penpo si ti o ns o n the o vern i g h t s h i ft a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o i t s Ac c o mmo d a t i o n Emplo ym ent Po l i cy, W al

- M ar t doe s no t cre ate l i ght duty p ositi ons f or anyem plo yee . That m ay b e w el land tr ue; how eve r, that r ati onal e i gnor es the r eal i ty ofthe si tuat i o n . T h e f a c t r e ma i n s , Ar i z a n o v s k a we n t fr o m a p a r t
- t i me em p loy ee to u n p aid an d te m p or ar i l y u n em p loy ed . W alM ar t has notci ted any case

— norar e we aware of an y

— i n w hi ch an e m plo ym ent a cti on was f oun d n ot to be m at er i al l y a dve r se mer ely b ec au se i t was c o ns i st en t wi tha b r o ade rc o m pan y p oli cy. In f ac t, s ucha fi ndi ng w oul d al l ow com panie s to ret al i ate , and even di scr i m i nate wi th i mp u n i t y s o l o n ga s th e e mp l o y me n tac t i o n c o mpla i ne d o fwa s c o ns i s t e ntwi th s o me i nt e r na lp o l i c y; a co m pany’s em plo ym ent pol i c y sh oul d not be used to shi el d l i abi l i ty in thatway. A ri zanov ska went fro m a p a r t
- t i me e mp l o y e e t o u n p a i d a n d t e mp o r a r i l y u n e mplo yed. T h at c er tainl y i s no t a pro m oti on; nori s i t aN o. 11

- 3387 11 continuati on o fthe sta tu s quo. A nd the m er e f act that i t was the r esul t o fW al

- M ar t’ s Accom m odati on Pol i cy does not m ake i t st in g an y l ess . W e fi nd thatshe has su ffered a mate r i al l y a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n a nd has s ati sfi ed the fi rs t tw o el em ents ofa pri m a fac ie retal i ati on ca se. But she i s a l ose r on the thi rd el em ent. To e st ab l i shthe thi r d e l ement

— i .e. , a causalr el ati on

— she m u st show that herEEO C charg e was a “substa nti alm oti vating f acto r” i n W al

- M ar t’ s decis i on t o re q u ire h er to ta ke an u n p aid lea ve of ab se n c e. Leitge n v . Franc i s ca n S ke m p Healthc are, Inc . , 63 0 F
. 3d 668, 675 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11)
. H er e, A ri zanov ska poi nts t o an e- m ai lco rr esp ond en ce bet w een tw o of W al- M art’s sup ervisors

— Ch ri sty( Pers onnelM anage r) and M ace ( H um an Reso urces M anage r)
. In the e- m ai lexchange , Chri styexpl ai n ed to M ace that A ri zanov ska had fi l ed l egal a c ti on a gainst W al

- M ar t fo ll owing her f i rs t pr egnancy . Chri sty th enfur th ere xpl aine d tha t Ari za no vs k a was pr egna nt aga i n and now had a m edi c alr est ri cti on that pr eve nted her fro m l i fti ng m or e than 10 pound s. M ac e responded t h at A ri zanov ska would have to tak e a l eave ofabs ence unti lshe coul d perfo rm heres senti alj ob fu n c tio n s . If t h is e -m ail se em s in n oc u ou s, it is b ec au se it is. M ace’s an d Ch risty’s state m en ts d o noth ing m ore than expl ai n W al-M ar t’ s Accom m odati on Pol i cy, wh i ch w oul d app l y r ega rdl ess o fwh etherA ri zanovska fi l ed a claim

. T he re is no ind ication th at A rizanovs ka’s EE OC charge w as a f acto r, m uch l ess a substa nti alm oti vating f acto r, f or W al- M ar t t o re quir e herto ta ke a l eave o fabs ence. W e hav e no bas i s fro m wh i ch to i nfe r th at W al

- M ar t’ s m o ti ve was ac tu al l y r et al i at o r y. The12 N o. 11

- 3387 di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y g r an te d s um m ary j ud gm en t a g a i n s tA r i z a n o v s k a ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.
C . S t a t e - l a w C l a i ms W e fin d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n ote r r in gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent a gainst Ari zanov ska o n her re m ai ni ng st ate
- l aw cl ai m s.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns st ate d above, w e A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on to gr ant sum m ar y j ud gm ent i n f avo r of the defendant.

6- 12- 12