A fte r ex am in in g t h e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * unnecessary. Thus, the appeal i s s ubm i tte d on the bri ef s a nd the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)( 2). 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Jul y 1 5, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly24 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 1040 S ANDRA S HERR I LL , P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v. JO H N E . PO T T E R, Po st m as te r G en er al, U ni ted S tat es Post alS er vi ce, D efend a nt -A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i no i s, Ea st ern Di vi si o n. N o. 06 C 412 0 W i l l i am J
. H ibbl er, Judg e .
O R D E R
The Post alS er vi ce fi re d Sandra Sher ri l l f or“unacce ptabl e co nd uct as ev i denced by [h er ] th re at to d o h ar m to a c o-w or ke r.” A fte r ex h au st in g a d m in ist ra tiv e re m ed ies , Sh er rill NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1040 Page 2

Sher ri l l al so cl ai m ed that Lee se xuall y har ass ed herand that A nd er son 1 d iscrim inated against h er on th e basis of a d isabil ity. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe Po st alS er vi ce o n the se c l ai m s, a nd S he r r i l l do es no t dev el o p a ny ar gu m en ts reg ar d in g t h es e c laim s o n ap p ea l; th u s w e w ill no t a d d re ss th em . Se e Ie nc o v. Angarone, 429 F.3d 680 , 685 (7th C ir. 2005). su ed th e Po st alS er vi ce a l l eg i ngs ex ua l ha r as sment, di sabi l i tydi sc r i m i na ti o n, a nd re tal i ati on. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted the Pos talS er vi ce’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, a n d w e a ffi r m. Sher ri l l, wh o bega n w or ki ng f orthe Post alS er vi ce in 199 8 a s a m ai l pro cess i ng cl er k, had seve ra l di sci plinaryi nci dents be f or e the o ne thatl ed to herte rm i nati on in 200 3. F or instan ce, at the en d of 1999 sup ervisor M ichae l L ee “rem oved ” Sherrillfrom her j ob after a ve rba l a l te r ca ti o n wi thhe r c o - wor k erCa ss an dr a S m i th( th r ee months l at er, ho wev er, the re m ova l was re du ced to a l ong- ter m suspensi on a nd S herr i l l r etur ned to w or k)
. In 200 1 and 2003, she re cei ved se ven- day suspensi ons f orfre quent abs entee i sm . In the f al l o f20 03 S he r r i l l ha d a v erba l a l te r ca ti o n wi thc o - wor k erLa vo nna Pumphr ey . Al th o ug h the i nc i den t d id n ot resu lt in d iscipli ne , her su p ervisors w arn ed her abou t her beh avior. T h e in c id en t t h at led to h er te rm in at ion to ok p lac e in D ec em b er 20 03
. Sh er rill, w h ile l ea vinghe r wor k pl ac e, s ta r te d a r g ui ngwi thS m i th, a nd the a r g ui nge sc al at ed to the po i nt w here the tw o w om en thr eat ened to fi ght e ach o ther
. S herr i l l then tai l ed Sm i th i n hercar to a nea rbypark i ng l ot, wh er e the two co nti nued to curs e a nd thr eat en ea ch other. S m i th r epo r te d the i nc i den t to s upe r vi so r Cha r l es te n Ander so n, a nd a fte r a n inv es ti g at i o n the P os ta l Ser vic e fire d Sh er rill. Sher ri l l sued the Pos talS er vi ce forwrongful ter m i nati on, cl ai m i ng tha t s he was fi re d i n re tal i ati on f orfi l i ng, i n N ove m ber20 03, an EEO co m pla i nt i n re sponse to her su p ervisors’ han d ling of he r argum en t w ith Pu m p hrey
. T he j ud ge d en ied Sh erril l’ s 1 requ est for app ointm en t of cou ns el, and grante d the P ostal Service’s m otion for su m m ary j udg m en t. ( S he r r i l l a l so fi l ed he r o wn su m m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n, b utde l ay ed si x months i n f or w ar ding a co py ofherbr i efto the Post alS er vi ce. ) The j ud ge f ound that S herr i l l had not m ade out a prim a faci e case f orr eta l i ati on under the i nd i re ct m etho d ofpro ofbec ause she di d not s how thatshe w as m eet i ng the Pos talS er vi ce’ s l egi ti m ate busi ness ex pec ta ti o ns ; the j udg e spe ci fi ca l l y po i nt ed to S he r r i l l ’ s ex te ns i ve di sc i pl i na r y r ec o r d a nd her confl i cts w i th S m i th. The j ud ge al so concl ud ed that, ev en i fS herr i l l co uld m ake o ut a prim a faci e ca se , S he r r i l l c o ul d no t sh o w tha t th e Po st alS er vi ce ’ s st at ed r ea so n f o r fi r i ng h er — n am ely , he r D ec em b er 20 03 co n flict w ith Sm ith

— w as p re te x tu al.N o. 09
- 1040 Page 3

Sher ri l l pro m ptl y m ove d to vacat e the j ud gm ent o n gr ounds that the di str i ct j ud ge com m i tte d a pro ceduraler ro r by tr eat i ng the Pos talS er vi ce’ s s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on a s th e o p e r a t i v e b r i e fi n th i s c a s e . S h e a r g u e d th a tth e e v i d e n c e s h e s u b mi t t e d wi th h e r o wn sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on s houl d have be en co nsi dered as well
. S he al so ar gued that sum m ar y j ud gm ent s houl d be va cate d because the dist ri ct j ud ge er re d i n rej ecting her ar gum ent that the fi l i ng o fherEEO co m pla i nt and herte rm i nati on were suffi ci entl y c l ose i n ti m e t o cre ate a causall i nk. Afte r the j ud ge gr anted S herr i l l ’ s s eco nd r equest f or appo i nt m en t o fc o uns el, S he r r i l l s uppl ement ed he r Rul e 59 ( e) mot i o n b y a r g ui ngtha t th e j ud ge shoul d have a ccepted herm oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, o r at the v er y l eas t adm i tte d the e vi dence i t incl ud ed as add i ti onalf acts . The j ud ge denie d Sher ri l l ’ s m oti on t o va ca te , no tingtha t ev enc o ns i der i ngthe e vi den ce i n h ers um m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n, the outco m e o fthe case would not change. On app ealS herr i l l, o nce ag ai n proc eedi ng pro se, fi rs t a rgues that the di str i ct j ud ge er re d w h en h e in itia lly re fu se d to ap p oin t c ou n se l for h er . Sh e m ain ta in s t h at sh e is i gnor ant o fthe l aw and cour t pr oce edi ngs a nd thathercas e was suffi ci entl y c om ple x to m er i t a pp oi ntm ent o fco unsel
. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on notto appoi nt co unsel to a c ivil p lain tiff for ab u se of d isc re tio n . Ja ckson v. Ko tter, 541 F.3d 688, 699-700 ( 7th Cir. 20 08 ); P rui ttv. M ote, 50 3 F
. 3d 647, 65 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. I n doi ng so , we do not engag e in an i nde pen den t an al y si s o fthe pl aint i ff ' s cl ai m s an d c o m pet en cy ; r athe r, we det er m i ne whe the r the c o ur ta pp l i e d the c o r r e c tl e g a l s t a nd a r d a nd wh e the r the c o ur tr e a c he d a re as on ab le c on c lu sio n giv en th e in for m at ion av aila b le t o it a t t h e t im e. P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 658- 59
. T he district cou rt i s to cons ider th e com p lexity of th e case an d the p lai nt iff’ s c om p et en c y t o litig at e iton h er ow n . Jac ks on , 54 1 F
. 3d at 700
. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on that S heri l l ’ s ca se “i s no t s o com ple x that appo i nt m en t o fc o uns eli s ne ce ss ar y, ” al th o ug h c ur so r y, was a r ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o fthe properst andard. S herr i l l had prov en adept a t nav i gat i ng the EEO co m pla i nt pro cess , ha vingfi l ed fi ve c o m pl aint s wi ththe EEOC i n h ers i x y ea r s atthe Po st alS er vi ce , a nd s he had succeeded i n sta ti ng a cl ai m i n herfi rs t pro se fi l i ng i n thi s ca se. S ee Jac ks on , 54 1 F
. 3d 699- 700. Her c l ai m s fordi scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on were no m or e co m pli cate d than thos e in a typi calem plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on ca se. N ex t S he r r i l l a r g ue s th atthe Po st alS er vi ce was no t en ti tl ed to s um m ar y j udg m en t bec au se, con trary to the d istri ct cou rt’s find ing, sh e had m et th e Post al Servi ce’s em plo ym ent e xpectati ons f orpurposes o fes tabl i shi ng a prim a faci e case o fr eta l i ati on. S ee Sim pson v. O

ff iceof Chief

Judge of Cir cuitCo urtof Wil l County, 559 F.3d 706 , 718 (7th C ir. 20 09 )
. S he r r i l l a ppea r s to a r g ue , i n s uppo r t o fhe r c o nt en ti o n tha t sh e was meet i ngthe Post alS er vi ce’ s e xpectati ons, thatev er y di sci plinaryact i on a gainst he r w as the pr oduct ofN o. 09
- 1040 Page 4

unf ai r ne ss o r b i as , a nd tha t th e i nc i den ts f o r whi chs he was di sc i pl i ne d di d no t o cc uri n the m anner that her supervi sor s a nd co - w or ker s r epor ted the m . F orexam ple , S herr i l l ar gues that she was j usti fi ed i n f ol l owing Sm i th to the parking l ot i n 200 3 be cause Sm i th hurl ed i nsul ts at her. The Po sta l S er vi ce, however, was und erno obl i gat i on t o consi der he r r ea so ns f o r f o l l o wi ngS m i th
. S he r r i l l a dm i ts tha t sh e was di sc i pl i ne d i n 1 99 9 f o r fi g ht i ng wi thS m i th, t wi ce s us pen ded f o r mis singwor k, a nd tha t sh e f o l l o wed S m i tht o the pa r k i ng l o t wi ththe i nt en ti o n o ffi g ht i nghe r — admi ss i o ns tha t pr o vi de ampl e ev i den ce tha t sh e w as not m eet i ng the Pos talS er vi ce’ s e xpectati ons. S herr i l l, i n herbr i ef, gi ves her ver si on o f the e vents l eadi ng to thes e di sci plinaryact i ons, but they ar e unsupp or ted byev i dence or c ita tio n s t o th e re c or d , an d are larg ely irre lev an t t o th e u ltim at e d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n s. E ve n if Sm ith initi ated the 20 03 en cou nt er by hitting Sh erril l w ith he r bag or verball y i ns ulting h er, as Sher ri l l i nsi sts , the Post alS er vi ce was wellwithi n i ts ri ghts to evaluate the inci dent as a w h ole an d to d ec id e w h at d isc ip lin ar y m ea su re s w er e a p p ro p ria te . W e a l so agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat, ev en i fS herr i l l co uld m ake o ut a p r i ma fa cie ca se f o r r et al i at i o n, s he c o ul d no t sh o w tha t th e Po st alS er vi ce ’ s st at ed r ea so n f o r fi r i ng her w as prete xtual
. S ee M cC o y v . M a yta g C o rp ., 49 5 F .3d 51 5, 52 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). Sh er rill m ai ntai ns thatthe ti m i ng o fherfi ring— one m onth a fterherEEO co m pla i nt— cre ate d an i ssue ofm ate ri alf act re gar ding w hethershe w as ter m i nated i n re tal i ati on f orthat com pla i nt. The pr oxi m i ty i n ti m e o fan EEO co m pla i nt and an a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on can be ev i dence ofdi scr i m i nati on. S ee Boum e hdiv. Pla s t ag Holdi ngs , L L C. , 48 9 F
. 3d 781, 79 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Butb etwee n the t i m e S he r r i l l fi l ed anEEO c ha r g e i n Nov embe r 2 00 3 an d wh e n s h e wa s fi r e d i n D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 3 , th e P o s t a l S e r v i c e , a ft e r a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t wo pr e- di sc i pl i na r y he ar i ng s, f o und tha t sh e ha d thr ea te ne d a fel l o w empl o y ee . T he r e i s no evi dence co nnecti ng the EEO char ge to her fi ring, and the Decem beri nci dent w i th S m i th ex pl ains the t i m i ngo fS he r r i l l ’ s te r m i na ti o n. She r r i l l pr es en te d no th i ngt o c o nt r adi ctthe Post alS er vi ce’ s a sse rt i on that s he was fi re d because o fthati nci dent. Fi nal l y, S herr i l l ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n denyi ng herRule 59 ( e) m oti on w i thout al l owing her to supp l em ent the r eco rd to r espond to the Post alS er vi ce’ s m oti on f or su m m ar y j udg m en t. T he di st r i ctc o ur t, ho wev er, di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n in de ny i ng the m oti on: i t pr oper l y hel d Sher ri l l to the l oca l r ule s; S herr i l l di d not point to any m ani fest er r o r o fl aw o r f ac t; a nd i n a ny e ve ntS he r r i l l ’ s m o ti o n wo ul d no t ha ve c ha ng ed th e outco m e o fthe case . S ee B o rdelo n v . Ch ica go Sch o o l R efo rm B d. o f Trustees , 23 3 F
. 3d 524, 52 9 (7th C ir 2000 ) (Ru le 59(e) i s not a veh icl e for a li tigant to un d o her ow n p roced ura l fai lures); see al so He cke rv. D e e r e& Co. , 55 6 F
. 3d 575, 59 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( affi rm i ng deni alo f59 ( e) m otion bec au se, in pa rt, new eviden ce w ou ld n ot hav e ch an ged outc om e). A FFI RMED .