## 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

- 1631 K RISTI J. C OR T EZ ANO, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. S AL I N B ANK & T RUS T C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:09- cv-00857- S EB- MJD

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AY 21, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. K ri stiCor tez ano fi l ed sui t a gai nst her f or m erem plo yer, S al i n Bank & Trust Com pany, al l eging nat i onal

- or i gi n dis cri m i nati on ba sed o n her m ar ri age t o J avi erCor tez ano, a M exi can ci ti zen whose p r e s e n c e i n t he U n i t e d S t a t e s w a s u n a u th o r i z e d

. ( We us e the c o upl e’ s fi r stna m es t o a vo i d c o nfus i o n. ) The d istri ct c o u r t grante d Salin B an k’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent, fi nd i ng tha t Kri stifailed to est abl i sh that2 N o. 11

- 1631 her fi ring was bas ed on a n i m p erm i ssibl e r eas on. Kri sti now appeal s. W e fi nd thatany disc ri m i nati on th at l ed to K ri sti ’ s fi ring wa s no t ba sed o n J avi er ’ s r ace or nati onalo ri gi n, but ra thero n hi s s tatus as an a l i en w ho l acke d perm i ssi on t o be in the c ountr y. Because al i en ag e is n ota p ro te c te d cla ss ifica tio n u n d er T itle V II, K r i s t i h a s n o c l a i m f o r r e l i e f, a n d s o w e a ffi r m.

I I n 199 7 J avi erunl aw full y e nter ed th e Un i ted S tat es, w here he t oo k up r es i dence w i thout a va l i d vi sa or wo r k pe r mi t
. S o me t i me l a t e r, h e me tKr i s t i a n d th e t wo m ar r i ed i n F eb r ua r y 2 00 1. I n Mar ch2 00 7, Sa l i n Ba nk hi re d K ri stias a M anage r i n T rai ni ng. Kri stisho w ed prom ise. Less than o ne m onth l ate r, she w as prom ote d to Bank Sa l es M an ag er, and a few m onths afterthat sh e was t r an sfer r ed to a mor e pr o fi tabl e l o ca ti o n. M ea nwhi l e, J av i era tt empte d t o s ta r t a ca r de ta i l i nga nd repai r b us i ne ss . Gi ve n h i s undo cument ed st atus , he l acke d a so ci alse curi ty num ber to o pen a business banki nga cc o untf o r hi s ne w ent er pr i se . To o penthe acco unts he neede d , J avi ero btained an i nd i vi du alta x i denti fi cati on nu m b er ( I TI N )
. S ee 26 U
. S. C. § 6 109; Tre as. Re g . § 30 1. 61 09

- 1(b) ( 2) ( f o r ei g n pe r so ns )
. Al th o ug h the ex ac t c i r c u m st an c es u n d er w h ich Jav ier ob ta in ed h is I TIN a re m urky, thi s a pp ealco m es to us fro m a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, and so we a ss u m e that J avi er p ro p er ly re c eiv ed h is id en tific at ion n u m b er . C hicago R eg’l C o un cil o f C a rpen ters v. Vill age o f Sch a um burg, 64 4 F
. 3d 353, 356 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 )
. Kr i s t i na med J a v i e r a j o i nt o wne r o nN o. 11

- 1631 3 her acco unt at Sal i n Bank, and w ith so m e hel p f ro m K ris ti, J avi er used hi s I TI N to open tw o acco unts of his o wn: a pe r so na l ac co unt, a s wel l a s a bus i ne ss a cc o unt f orhi s com pany, Corte zano M oto rs , Ltd. J avi er ’ s business ventur e flound er ed, unfo rtunatel y, and so i n Decem ber 20 07, he ret u rn ed to M ex ico to so rtou t h is c itiz en sh ip sta tus. A ro und thatti m e, K ri sti re veal ed J avi er ’ s unauthor i zed st at u s t o h er su p er vis or atSa linB an k, St a c y N ov ot n y, in connect i on with herr equest f ora tw o- w eekvac ati on d u r i n g w h ich sh e p lan n ed to at te n d p ro c ee d in gs in M ex i co t o he l p J av i ero bt ain U. S
. c iti zens hi p. Nov o tn y gr anted the r equest, and K ris ti tr avel ed to M exi co f ro m J anuary24 to Fe bruar y 8 , 20 08. A fte r l ea rn in g a b ou t Ja vie r’s sit u at ion , N ov ot n y d id not l et m atters lie. I ns tead , she ca ll ed Salin Ba nk ’s secur i ty offi cer, M i ke H ubbs, an d to l d him thatKri sti ha d j o i nta cc o unt s atthe b an kwi tha kno wn undo cum ented a l i e n. Hub b s v e r i fi e d tha tJ a v i e r wa s i nd e ed o n the se a cc o unt s. Co nc erne d tha t th i s ar r an g ement m i ght i m pli cate l aw s a gai nst b an k fr aud, H ubbs schedule d a m eet i ng w i th N ovo tny and Kri sti for Febr uary11 , 20 08. Du ring thi s m eet i ng, K ri stiadm i tte d that J avi erhad il legall y ent ered the U nited Stat e s . She u rged , how ever, that h e w as then i n M exi co tr yi ng to o btain a v i sa or U .S. citiz en s h i p so th at h e c ou ld rejoin h er . H u b b s d id n ot se e thi s a s a n excuse; i nstea d, he em phasi zed his concern that J avi er, as an “ i l l ega l al i en fro m M exi co, ” m ust have used fra u d u lent docum ents to open hi s a ccounts.4 N o. 11

- 1631 As the me e t i ngp r o g r e s s e d, Hub b s ’ s te mpe r fl a r e d. W h en N ovo tny b ri efl y s tepped out o fthe ro om , H ubbs goti n K ri sti ’ s f ace, scr eam ed at her, cal l ed J avie r a “ pie ce of s hi t, ” a nd de man de d tha t Kr i s t i a dmi t tha tJ avi er i l l ega l l y o pened his S al i n Bank acco unts. U nconvi nced by K ris ti ’ s r epeate d stat em ents that J avi er ’ s I TI N , o ther doc u m en tat i on, and acco unts were l egi ti m ate , H ubbs in for m ed K ris ti t h at h e w ou l d b e filin g a n int er n al Su sp ici ous Acti vi ty Report
. I n the cour se ofco l l ecting i n for m ati on f orhi s r epor t, H ubbs e m ai l ed sev er alS al i n Ba n k s up er vi sor s t o i n f o r m t he m th a tJ a v i e r h a d “ g a i n e d e n t r y i n t o th e US il leg a lly ,” “ ill e g a lly ob t a in e d a nInd iana [D river’ s L icens e]” bypr o vi di ng“ f al se i den ti fi ca ti o n” a nd us ed th i s d ocum en tation to op en his ac c o un ts at Sali n B an k. H ub bs’s com ple ted r ep or t h ar ped on the f act that J avi erwas an “i l l ega l al i en. ” At th is p oint, S al i n Bank se em s t o have c on sid er ed firin g K ris ti. A d ra ft “ T er m in at ion N ot ice ,” w hich i d en tified K risti ’s com p li cit beh avior i n Javier’s allege d fraud as the r eas on f orherfi ring, was ci rcul ate d amongthe human r es o ur ce s depa r tm enta nd Nov o tn y on F ebr uary13
. Thi s no ti ce, h ow eve r, was neversi gned or se n t t o K ris ti. On Febr uary19 Kri stiand herat torney a tte m pted to att end a sc hedu l ed m eet i ng with Sal in B ank r epres entati ves re gar ding the ongoing i nvest i gat i on. The Bank, ho wev er, r efus ed to a dm i t Kri st i ’s at to r ne y t o the m eeting, stating th at th e m eeting w as a “p rivate m atter” re l ate d t o i nter nal “Sa l i n Bank busi ness. ” K ri stirep l i ed that she w oul d no t att end the m eet i ng w i thout he r at-N o. 11

- 1631 5 torney. A t a n i m passe, Kri stiand herat torney b ega n to l eave . One of the Sal i n Bank re prese ntati ves ca l l ed afte r the m , tell ing Kri st i tha t bywal k i nga way fr o m the m eeting sh e w as “ab an d onin g [h er] j ob.” K ristil eft neve rth el es s. Tha t afte r no o n, S al i n Ba nkdr afte d, s igne d, a nd sent a l ett ert o K ri sti, te rm i nati ng herem plo ym ent for re fusi ng to part i ci pate in the m eet i ng. A fterKri stiwas fi re d, H ubbs r epor te d K ris ti ’ s a cti vi ty to U
. S. I m m i grati on a nd Custom s Enfo rce m ent. H e a l so at te nde d, o n be ha l f o f S al i n Ban k, a J une 4, 2008 , m ee ting of the Frau d Fi na nc ialN etw ork, w h ic h is a l oose con sorti um o fbank s in northeastI nd i ana with the m i ssi on ofr oo ting out f ra ud

. A ccor ding to the m i nutes o fthat m e e t i ng, Hub b s wa r ne d the o the r b a nk s tha tKr i sti w as fi red f or open ing fra ud ulen t acco un ts for Javier, an “illeg al im m igr an t w h o is n ow ba c k in M ex ico .” On Septem ber11 , 20 08, Kri stifi l ed sui t in I nd i ana s tat e cour t, cl ai m i ng tha t S al i n Bank h ad bl ackl i ste d her, def am ed her, and i ntenti onal l y c aused herem oti onaldi st r e s s . I n 2 0 0 9 , s he a men de d h er com pl a i ntt o a dd a cl ai m f orem plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on under Ti tl e VI I, 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e, e ts e q. I n l i g h to fth e n e w fe d e r a l c l a i m, Sali n B an k rem oved the ca se to the U
. S. District C ou rt f orthe So uthern D istr i ct o fI nd i ana. On Febr uary15 , 2011 , the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted S al i n Ba nk’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n al l cl ai m s.

II W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . Chic ago Reg ’ l Counc i l of Carpe nt e rs , 64 4 F
. 3d6 N o. 11

- 1631 at3 56
. I n o r dert o s ucc ee d on he r c la i m f o r e m pl o y m en t d isc rim i nati on under Ti tl e VI I, Kri sti ’ s fi rs t t aski s t o show that s h e b elo ngs t o a s tatutor i l y pr ote cted cl ass . H er e, Kri stial l ege s that s he w as disc ri m i nated ag ai nst b e c a us e o f he r mar r i a g e t o a M e xi c a n c i t i z e n w hose r e s i d e nc e i n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s w a s u n a u th o r i z e d

. We have not yetdecid ed wh etherdi scr i m i nati on ba sed o n the r ace or n at ional or i gi n ofa perso n’s spouse o r p ar tn er falls w ith in th e p ro te c tio n s o fT itle V II. Ineic hen v. Am e r i t e ch C o rp. , 410 F.3d 956 , 961-62 (7th C ir. 2005). A l though we note t h at seve ra l o fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts have rul ed that T i tl e VI I ’ s pro tect i ons apply i n such c as es , e . g. , H ol co m b v. Io na Coll ege, 521 F.3d 130 ( 2d Cir. 20 08 ); Tetro v . E llio tt P o ph a m P o ntia c, O ldsm o bile, B uic k, & G M CTrucks, Inc. , 183 F.3d 98 8, 99 4 (6t h C ir. 19 99 ); P a rr v. Wood m en o

f the Wor l d L i

f eIns . Co. , 79 1 F
. 2d 888, 89 1- 92 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) , t he an s we r t o th i s qu e s t i o n i s i mm ate ri al to K ri sti ’ s case , and s o w e l eave i t f orano therday. Even ass um i ng tha t Ti tl e VI Iapplies to disc ri m i nati on aga i nst o ne’ s s pouse, Kri sti’s cl ai m f al l s s hor t be cause i t i s b a s e d o n J a v i e r ’ s a l i e na g e , whi c h i s no t pr o t ecte d by the s tatute. Even r eadi ng the r eco rd i n the li ght m ost fav or ab le t o K ris ti, it is b ey on d d isp u te th at Sa lin B an k’s actions w ere m otivated by t h e f act th at Javier’ s pr es en ce i n the Uni te d S ta te s was una utho r i ze d. Nov o tn y fi rs t ca l l ed H ubbs be cause she l ear ned that K ri sti ’ s husband w as an undocum ented al i en. H ubbs’ s r eport r epea te dl y no te d tha t J av i erwas “ smugg l ed i nt o the U S i l l ega l l y, ” had “ resi d[ed] i n the U S i l l ega l l y, ” was an “il legal ali en ” an d an “ ill egal i m m igrant.” Th e rep ort b ar ely n ot es Jav ier ’s M ex ica n h e rit ag e, m ak in g on lyN o. 11

- 1631 7 passi ng r efer ences to J avi erand K ri sti ’ s t ri ps to M ex ico. E ve n H u b b s’s tir ad e in h is fi rs t m ee tin g w ith K ris ti, disa gr eeabl e a s i t was, em phasi zed J avi er ’ s unauthor i zed sta tus, nothi s M exi can ance str y. A nd the coup de grâce i s the f act that afterKri stiwas fi re d, H ubbs r epor ted hi s fi nd i ngs t o federa l i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es. There ar e s eve ra l r eas ons w hy S al i n Bank m i ght ha ve b ee n co n c er n ed ab ou t K ri s t i ’s a ss ist an c e t o Ja vie r in op en in g h is a c c ou n ts . E ve n as s u m in g t h at Jav ier ’s IT IN w as legit im at e, S a l i n B an k m igh t h av e w an te d to av oid h old in g a c c ou n ts for p eo p le w h o illeg ally r e s id e in th e U nited S t a t e s. I t w ou ld h ard ly ad van ce th e ban k’s b us i ne s s t o b e k no wn a s a r e s o ur c e f o r s uc h al i ens. I nd eed , thes e con cern s are refl ecte d i n th e un sen t d raft Te r m i na ti o n Not i ce o fF eb r ua r y 1 3. Hubb s i ni tiall y hi g hl i ghted hi s con c ern abo ut poss ibl e ba nk fra ud o r othe r vi ol ati ons ofbank i ng r egul ati ons, b u t hi s deci si on t o cal l U
. S. I m m i gr ati on a nd Custom s Enfo rce m en t, r ather than l oca l o r federa l bank i ng autho ri ti es, co uld be se en as an eff or t i m m edi ate l y t o dis so ci ate the bank f ro m an y irr eg u lar ity . Th e r e c or d lea ve s n o d ou b t t h at Sa lin Bank’s deci si on t o fi re Kri st i w as notta ken b ecause J av i erwa s Me x i c a n, b u tb e c a u s e J a v i e r wa s a n u n d o cum en te d a l i en . Th e que s t i o n, the n, i s wh e the r T i t l e V I Ig ua r ds aga inst al i enage -base d discr i m i nati on. I t doe s no t. Dis

cr i m i na ti o n base d o n o ne ’ s st atus a s ani m m i g r an t m i ght ha ve been i ncl ud ed w i thi n the am bi t o f“n ati onal o r i g i n” di sc r i m i na ti o n, s ee 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 00 0e

- 2( a) ( 1) , b ut th ati s no t th e path the S upr eme Co ur t ha s ta k en . The8 N o. 11

- 1631 C ou rt i ns tead chos e alm ost 40 y e a r s a go to ad op t a narro w erdefi ni ti on o fnati onalo ri gi n dis cri m i na tio n f or pu rpos es of Tit l e VI I
. See E spin o z a v. Fa rah M fg. C o ., 414 U
. S. 86 ( 1973 )
. Revi ew i ng the st atute ’ s l egi sl ati ve hi sto ry, the Court con c l ud ed that the t er m “nat i onal or i gi n” was l i m i ted to “the co untry fro m wh i ch yo u or yourf or ebea rs cam e. ” Espi noza , 4 14 U
. S. at8 9 ( quo ting 110 Cong. Rec. 2549 ( 1964 ) ( sta tem ent of Rep. Roos eve lt)). T h u s, n at ion al or igin d isc rim in at ion a s d efin ed in T itl e VIIenc om p a s s es d iscrim ination ba sed on one ’s ancest ry, but not disc ri m i nati on ba sed o n ci ti zenshi p or im m igr at ion st at u s. Id. T h e C ou rtth ou gh t t h at it w ou ld have been i nc on sis tent f orCongr ess to have pro scr ibed di sc r i m i nati o n a g ains t al i en s g i ve n the “ l o ng st an di ng pract i ce o fr eq u i ring federa l em plo yee s t o be Unite d St ate s ci ti zens. ” Id

. at90
. I n l i ght o fthes e co ncl usi ons, th e C ou rtex p licit ly h eld th a t “ n o th in g” in T itle V II

“ ma k e s i t i l l e g a l t o d i s c r i mi n a t e o n th e b a s i s o fc i ti ze nshi p oral i enage . ” Espi noza , 41 4 U.S
. at95
. W e a c kn ow l e d g e t h at C on gr es s t oo k s te p s t o lim it Espi noza ’s h old in g w h e n it en ac te d 8 U .S.C . § 13 24 b in 1 9 9 6. T h at st at u te ad d re ss ed th e s u b j ec t o f u n fair i m m i gr atio n-r el ate d em plo ym ent pr acti ces; i t r eads a s f ol l ows i n the re l evantpart : ( a) Pro hibi ti on o fd isc rim i nati on ba sed o n nati onal o r i g i n o r c i ti ze ns hi p s ta tu s (1) G en er al ru le I t i s an unf ai r i m m i g r at i o n- r el at ed em pl o y m en t p r a c t i c e f o r a p e r s o n o r o th e r en t i t y t o d i s c r i min at e aga in st an y in d ivid u al ( ot he rthan an un autho-N o. 11

- 1631 9 riz ed a lien , as d efin ed in s ec tio n 13 24 a(h )(3) of th is ti tl e) wi thres p ec t to the hi r i ng, o r r ec r ui tment orr efer ra l f ora fee, o fthe i nd i vi du alf orem p loy

m ent o r th e di schar gi ng o fthe i nd i vi du alfro m empl o y m en t

— ( A ) because of such i nd i vi du al ’ s n ati onal or i gi n, o r ( B) in the case o fa prot ecte d i nd i vi du al( as defined in para gr aph ( 3) ) , bec ause ofsuch i nd i vi du al ’ s ci ti zenshi p status. 8 U.S
. C. § 1 324b ( a) ( 1) ( em phasi s a dd ed); se e a l so Cham b e rof

Com m e r ceof

U
. S. v. W

hi t i ng, 1 31 S . C t. 19 68, 19 84 (20 11 ). B u t, ev en ap ar t fro m th e fa c t t h at K ris ti d id not see k t o re l y o n thi s s tatute a nd the f act that i t i s no t cl ea r tha t i t co ve r s sp ou ses , s he c anno t o ve r co m e th e st a t ut e ’ s e xp l i c i t e xc l us i o n o f un a utho r i z e d a l i e ns f ro m i ts cove ra ge. Kri stihas never conte ste d the f act that J avi erwas not l aw full y pr ese nt i n the countr y, and as f aras we can te l l, thati s the end o f it . A ny di scr i m i nati on s uffer ed by K ri stiwas not the r esul t o fher m ar ri age to a M ex i can, but ra therthe re sul t o fherm ar ri age to anuna utho r i ze d a l i en . Underthe c ir cumst an ce s, the d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly gra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t in S a l i n B a n k ’ s f a v o r o n Kr i s t i ’ s c l a i ms u n d e r fe d e r a l l a w.

III W e turn now t o K ri sti ’ s s up ple m entalst ate l aw cl ai m s, al l o fwhi chare b ased o n Indi an a l aw. Ge ne r al l y, whena c ou rth as d ism iss ed all th e fe d er al c lai m s in a law su it10 N o. 11

- 1631 b e f o r e t r i a l, i ts ho ul d r e l i nqui s h j ur i s di ct i o n o v e r s up ple m entalst ate l aw cl ai m s r atherthan re sol ve them o n th e m er its
. M i l l e r v . He r m an , 600 F.3d 726 , 738 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. W hen the re sol uti on o fthes e c lai m s i s cl ear, nonethel ess , the cour t m ay choos e t o deci de them

. S ee 28 U. S
. C
. § 1 36 7( c) ( l i st i ngpe r m i ss ibl e r ea so ns f o r de cl i ni ng to ex er c ise su p p lem e n t al jur isd ict ion ). Wil li am s v. R odrigu ez , 509 F.3d 392 , 404 (7th C ir
. 2007). T he district cou rt here co m m i tte d no er ro r by choos i ng to di spos e of th es e c laim s a s w ell.

A K ri sti ’ s fi rs t s tat e l aw cl ai m i s f ori nten tio n ali nfl i cti on ofem oti onaldi str ess . T o survi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent, s h e mu s tsh o w th a tS a l i n B a n ke n g a g e d i n ( 1 ) e x t r e me and outr age ous c onduct t h at ( 2) i ntenti onal l y o r re c kle ss ly (3) ca u se d (4) sev er e em ot ion al d ist re ss . Yo rk v. Fre der ick, 947 N .E .2d 969, 976 (I nd

. Ct
. A p p . 2011). The cond u c t a l l ege d m ust be “s o outr age ous” and “so extr em e” so as to go “bey ond al l pos sibl e bo und s o f de c e nc y . ” Id. at97 6- 77. A s we have obs er ved befor e, I nd i ana “ cour ts have been re l uctan t to aw ar d dam age s f or i nt e nt i o na l i nfl i c t i o n o fe mot i o na l di s t r e s s i n e mpl oym ent c ase s. ” M c Cre a ryv . L i b b ey - Owe n s - F o r d C o. , 1 32 F.3d 115 9, 1167( 7th Cir. 1998). M cC reary i s i ns tr uct i ve . I n tha t c ase , the de fen dan t
“ c a l l e d Mc C r e a r y i n t o h i s o ffi c e a n d c o n f r o n t e d h i m, p oin tinghi s fi ng eri nt o M cCr ea r y ’ s f ac e an d wi tha ra i sed vo i ce s ayi ng, ‘ [ t] hi s i s abun c h o fbul l shi t. ’ ” Id. atN o. 11

- 1631 11 1161
. Despi te thi s r ud e be havi or, we affi rm ed the dist ric t cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ant, ruling th at t h is cond uc t w as a “far cry” fr om the sort of“e xtre m e a nd o utra geo us co nd uct” tha t was r equi re d f orr eco ver y fori ntenti onali nfl i cti on o fem oti onaldi str es s. Id. at11 67. The s i m il ari tyb etwee n the c o nduc t i n M cC rearya nd th at in t h is c as e is ap p a r en t. H u b b s, ac c or d in g t o K ris ti, sh o ut ed di r ec tly i n h er f ac e th at J av i er was “g arba g e” a nd a “pi ec e o fs hi t. ” A lthou g h Hubb s’ s ac ti o ns s tr i k e us as unp ro fess i onal, i napp ro pri ate , and no doubt upsetting, thi s “ i sol ate d and bri efi nci dent w h i ch to ok pla ce o ut o f th e pr es en ce o fo th er s” di d no t m ee t th e st an dar d I ndi an a re quire s to est abl i sh extr em e a nd o utra geo us co nd uct. M cC reary, 13 2 F
. 3d at 1167
. Thus, we affi rm the d i str i ct c o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n to nth i s c l a i m.

B Kri sti a l so a ss er ts tha t S al i n Ba nkde f amed h era nd bl ackl i ste d her. Fo r her cl ai m o fdef am ati on to survi ve su m m ar y j ud gm ent, Kri stii s r equi re d to dem onst ra te, am ong othe r thi ngs, thatS al i n Ba n k m ade st ate m ents th at inj u re d or d im in ish ed h er rep u ta tio n . Wel ls v. Bernit t, 93 6 N
. E. 2d 12 42 , 12 46 ( I nd. App. 2 01 0)
. Herb l ac k l i st i ng theo ryr equi res proo fthatS al i n Bank at tem pted “to preven t [ he r ]
. . . fr o m o bt aininge m pl o y m en t wi tha ny othe r perso n, o r com pany. ” I ND . C ODE § 22- 5- 3- 2. Aft erdi sc o ve r y, Kr i st i ha s m an ag ed to fi nd o nl y o ne p iec e o f ev id en c e in su p p or t o f th es e c laim s: an em ail12 N o. 11

- 1631 conta i ni ng an excer pt ofthe m i nutes fro m the J une 4, 2008 , Fr aud Fi nan c ial N etworkm eet i ng. S he ar gues th atthi s emai l, whi ch war ne d the o th erb an k s i n the N etwor kno t to hi r e he r b ec au se “ sh e had bee n o pen i ng u p frau d u len t a c c ou n ts for h er h u sb an d (an ille g al im m igr ant who i s no w bac k in M exi co) , ” i nj ured herpro fess i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n a n d p r e v e n t e d h e r fr o m fi n d i n ge mplo ym ent a t o therbank s in the N etwork

. Sa linB an k a rg u es th at th is e m ail is in ad m iss ible he arsay an d therefore carries no w eight a t sum m ary j ud gm ent. Kri stir esponds thati t no t h ea rs ay because s he i s n o to ffe r i ngi tf o r the t r uth o fthe ma t t e r a s s e r t e d. F ED . R. E V ID . 8 0 1
. S pe c i fi c a l l y, s he c o nt e nd s tha t i t i s not o ffer ed to pr o ve th at sh e ac tu al l y co m m i tt ed f r au d, but rath er only that H ub bs ac cu sed her of doing so . K risti ’s i nterpret ati on m i sr eads the em ai l : The em ai l st ate s that “S al i n warne d .

. . [ th at ] s he ha d b ee n o pen i ngup f r au dul ent a ccounts
. . . . ” Thus, the em ai l ind ica te s that Sa linB an k m ad e c e rt ain st at em en ts , an d its on ly possibl e use i s t o show that the Bank di d in factm ake th o se s ta te m en ts
. The e m ai l i s i na d m i ss ibl e he ar sa y, a nd th e d istri ct cou rt prop erly d isregard ed i t on su m m ary ju d gm en t. F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 ( c ) ( 2 )
. Kr i s t i p r e s e n t s no o th erpr o o fi n s uppo rt of he r c l ai m s f o r de f amat i o n a nd b lac klis tin g, an d so w e a ffirm th eir d ism iss al.

IV Fi nal l y, Kri sti see ks to have the nam es ofherm i nor c h ild re n st ric ke n from Sa l i n B an k’s m em or an d u m in su p p ort of its m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t, in a ccor-N o. 11

- 1631 13 dan ce wi thF ED . R. C IV . P. 5
. 2 ( a )
. Al tho ugh Kr i s t i fi l ed a m o t i o n t o s tr ike w ith th e d ist ric t c ou rt, i t d id n otru le on that m oti on p rio r to thi s a pp eal

. A t o ra l ar gum ent, c ou n se l for Sa linB an k c on c ed ed th at th e n a m e s s h ou ld n ot h ave been i ncl ud ed, and the bank offer ed no obj ecti on t o K ri sti ’ s m oti on. There f or e, we R EMAND WIT H I NS T RUCT I ONS to str i ke the nam es of the m i n or chi l dren f ro m S al i n Bank’s m em or andu m , but w e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti n al l o therr espect s.

5- 21- 12