After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is *

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 21, 2008*

Decided August 21, 2008

Before

 RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

 DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3691

BRANDON WEBB,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHRYSLER LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Western Division.

No. 03 C 50177

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

O R D E R

Brandon Webb sued his employer, Chrysler LLC (then known as DaimlerChrysler),

for retaliating against him because he complained of sexual harassment, sex discrimination,

and race discrimination against a coworker. The district court granted summary judgment

for Chrysler, reasoning that Webb had failed to show the required causal connection

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-3691 Page 2

The district court analyzed Webb’s retaliation claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1

§ 2000e-3, but rejected a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because, at the time, our

precedent precluded § 1981 claims alleging retaliation for opposing racial discrimination

against others. See Hart v. Transit Mgmt. of Racine, Inc., 426 F.3d 863, 866 (7th Cir. 2005). We

overruled that aspect of Hart in Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387, 403 (7th Cir.

2007), aff’d 128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008). Nevertheless, remand is unnecessary because the district

court’s analysis of the retaliation claim under Title VII applies equally to the claim under

§ 1981. See Humphries, 474 F.3d at 404.

between his protected activities and the adverse actions taken by his employer against

him.1

On appeal Webb, appearing pro se, presents a litany of grievances against the

lawyers who represented him in the district court, but he never addresses the district

court’s ruling in anything but the most cursory fashion. Although we liberally construe

pro se filings, see, e.g., McCready v. Ebay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 890 (7th Cir. 2006), pro se

litigants are not free to ignore Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which requires,

among other things, that the brief contain the “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for

them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

relies." FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). 

In other words, “a brief must contain an argument consisting of more than a generalized

assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545. 

Webb’s brief, which does not even challenge the district court’s reasons for granting

summary judgment to Chrysler, can only barely be said to contain a generalized assertion

of error and does not cite any authority at all. On March 31, 2008, after Webb had twice

missed the deadline to file his opening brief, we directed him to “set forth his arguments

regarding why he believes the district court’s order was in error in a brief that complies

with federal and local rules.” Webb failed to do so, and “we cannot fill the void by crafting

arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Id.

DISMISSED.