# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 Argued April 7, 2010 D eci dedJune 10, 2010 Before D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 2680 JO SE P H R . B U Z IN SK I, P laint if f-A ppell ant,
v. A M E R I C A N A I R L I N E S, I NCOR PO RAT ED , 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 of Illino is, E as te rn D ivis ion
. N o. 1: 08- cv- 0396 6 Su za n n e B . C on lon, Judg e .


### O R D E R J o se ph R. Buz i ns k ia ppea l s fr o m a g r an t o fs um m ary j udg m en t di smi ss i ng th e case h e brou gh t against his f orm er em p loyer A m erican A irl ines, Inc . , f or retali atory disc harg e under I l l i noi s l aw . Our j uri sdic ti on r est s o n div er si ty ofci ti zenshi p. The di str i ct cour t found that Buzi nskif ai l ed to es tabl i sh thathi s di schar ge w as causal l y c onnecte d to hi s pl an to fi l e a cl ai m f orworke rs ’ co m pensati on be nefi ts. F i rs t, the f acts . 

### NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSTION Tobecitedonly in a c c ordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 09- 2680 Page 2

Bu zins ki argu es that A m eri can had already fir ed him o n N ovem ber 5. In sup port, he r efers 1 to a n ex hibitthatl is ts him as “Term inat ed/Resi gned ” as ofN ovem ber 5. H ow ever, the ex hibiti s an unau thent ic ated docum ent, and B uzinski ’ s com plaintalleges h e w as ter m inat ed N ovem ber 20, which am ount s t o a bi ndi ng j udi c i al adm i s s i on.

A m er i can Air l i nes hi re d Bu zi nskii n 200 0 t o w or k a s afl eetse rv i ce c l er k a t O’ H ar e I nt erna ti o na lAi r po r t. He be ca m e ana i r cr aft fue l eri n 2 00 7 an d i nj ur ed hi s r i g ht ar m an d sh ou ld er atw or k on O c to b er 21 of th at ye ar . B u zin sk i rep or te d th e inj u ry to h is m anage r Dianna S hi rl ey, wh o com ple ted an a cci dent for m and re vi ew ed A m er i can’ s “Ground Em plo yee Inj ury On D uty Info rm ati on Pack age ” with hi m . S hi rl ey cal l ed Bu zi nski ’ s ho use a t l eas t tw i ce b etween Octobe r 21 and N ove m ber5 i n or der t o schedule a b oa rd of in q u iry h ea rin g, w h ich is a fa c t-fin d in g s es sio n to d et er m in e a n inju ry ’s c au se . Dur ingo ne pho ne c al l, Buz i ns k it o l d S hi r l eyhe c o ul d no t g ett o O’ H ar e f o ra he ar i ng b ec au se h is d oc to r h ad res tr ict ed h im from d riv in g a n d h ad to ld h im n otto ta ke p u b lic tr an sp or ta tio n be c au se h e m igh t re -inj u re h is s h ou ld er . H ow ev er , in a su b se q u en t c all Shi rl ey w as tol d that Buzi nskiwas “out pick i ng up hi s s on, ” s o she s uspected Buzins kiwas l yi ng ab out not bei ng ab l e t o att end the hea ring.

S hi r l eyc al l ed Buzins k io n Nov embe r6 t o t r y t o s ch edu l e a he ar i ng, b ut B uz inski again claim ed he cou ld n ot get to O ’H are. A ccord ingly, Shirl ey an d Bu zinski’s u n ion st ew ar d h eld th e b oa rd of in q u iry se ss ion ov er th e p h on e t h e fo llow in g d ay . Bu zi nskico nfi rm ed that the he ar i ng was tak i ng pl ace ove r the phone because hi s doct or ha d ad vised him not to d rive. In th e m ean tim e, A m erican w as inves tigating B uz inski’s a c t i v i t i e s t o s e e i fS hi r l e y ’ s s us pi c i o ns we r e wa r r a nt e d. S ur v e i l l a nc e o n No v e mbe r6 a nd 8 e s t ab l i s h e d th a tB u z i n s k iwa s d r i v i n gh i s c a rd e s p i t e wh a th e t o l d S h i r l e y . A n i nvest i gat or y m eet i ng was hel d on N ove m ber20 , 20 07, pursuant to Bu zi nski ’ s co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent, wh er e Buzi nskiadm i tte d to dri vi ng and sa i d he coul d have t ake n pu bl i c tr anspor tat i on. As a r esul t, he was t er m i nated f orvi ol ating Am er i can’ s r ule s a gainst disho nesty . Buzi nskifi l ed a c l ai m f orworke rs ’ co m pensati on be nefi ts about a m onth a fter

1 hi s di schar ge, and he fi l ed thi s l aw sui t s eve ra lm onths l ate r. As an as i de, we note that Bu zi nskigr i eve d the t er m i nati on under Am er i can’ s co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent with hi s uni on. The g ri evance was denie d and neither Bu zi nskinorhi s uni on t oo k the m att erto arbi tr at i o n. A s a n i ni ti alm att er, Buzins kiar gues that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts d iscretion in refusing to acc ep t m an y of th e facts he sub m itted i n resp ons e to A m erican’s sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on under Northern Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s Loca lRule 56
. 1. W e r evi ew a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on co ncer ni ng wh ethera l i ti gant com pli ed w i th a l oca lr ule f oran ab u se of d isc re tio n . Ci c ho n v . Ex e l on Ge n e rat i on Co
. , L
. L
. C. , 401 F.3d 80 3, 80 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). I n the conte xt o fRule 56
. 1, we have r epeate dlyhel d that adi str i ct c ourtm ay re quir e s tr i ctN o. 09- 2680 Page 3

c om p lian c e. Id
. Rul e 56
. 1 g o ve r ns s um m ary j udg m en t pr o ce dur e an d r equi r es the opposi ng par ty to re spond to the m ova nt’ s s tat em ent with speci fi c r efer ences to affi davi ts, pa r t s o fthe r e c o r d, a nd o the rs up po r t i ngma t e r i a l s . T he di s t r i c tj ud g e r e fus e d t o a c c e pt m any o fBuzi nski ’ s s tat em ents because she f ound that he re l i ed on no nres ponsi ve evi dence and i m properf actualchar acte ri zati ons. In so r uling, the j ud ge note d the br eak s s he had alread y given B uz inski: after B uz inski received a final exten sion to resp ond to A m erican’s m oti on, he fi l ed Rule 56
. 1 s tat em ents w i thout the r efer enced ev i dence. The j ud ge gr anted l ea ve t o r emedythe de fi ci en cy, b utBuz i ns k i ’ s m at er i al s r emai ne d de fi ci en t. We fi nd the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in re fusi ng to acc ept Buzi nski ’ s unsupp or ted sta tem ents. M oving to o ur de no vo re vi ew o fthe re tal i ato rydi schar ge cl ai m , Buzi nski alle ge s h e w as fired for e x er c isin g h is rig h ts u n d er th e Illino is W or ke rs ’ C om p en sa tio n A c t. Wh e n a fe d e r a lc o u r te x e r c i s e s d i v e r s i ty j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a ra r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c h a r g e c l a i m, w e hav e s ai d i t i s a n open quest i on, under the E rie doctr i ne, wh etherI l l i noi s o r federa ll aw ap p lies
. M cCoy v. M ayt ag, 495 F.3d 51 5, 52 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). H ow ev er, w e u se d th e Illino is fra m ew or k without di scussi on o fthe E rie que st i o n in D otson v. BR P U
. S. Inc. , 52 0 F
. 3d 703 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ; and Buzinsk ibas es hi s cl ai m so l el y o n I l l i noi s l aw , so we w i l lapplyst ate l a w. Bu zi nksiar gues that C lark v. O w ens -Brockw ay G lass Co ntaine r, Inc. , 69 7 N
. E.2 d 743 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 98) , es tabl i shed a perse r ule f orr eco ver y in w or ker s’ co m pensati on re tal i ato rydi schar ge case s. Thi s a rgum ent f ai l s no t o nl y b ecause he r ai ses i t forthe fi rs t tim e o n ap p ea l, b u t a lso be c au se Il lin ois co u rt s h av e e x p licit ly rej ec te d a p er se ru le. See, e . g. , G rabs v. Safe w ay, Inc. , 917 N
. E
. 2d 122. 124 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2009).

T o s u c c ee d u n d er Il lin ois law , B u zin sk i m u stsh ow h e w as d isc h ar ge d in re ta liat ion for h is a c tiv itie s in vio lat ion of a c lea r m an d at e o f p u b lic p olic y. M cCoy, 495 F. 3d at 520- 521. F i ring an em plo yee f orexer ci si ng worke rs ’ co m pensati on r i ghts w as fi rs t r ec o g ni ze d a s a vi o l at i o n o fI l l i no i s publ i c po l i cyo ve rthi r tyy ea r s ag o i n Kel s ay v . M ot orol a, Inc. , 384 N
. E
. 353, 357 (I ll
. Sup
. Ct
. 1978). T he re are three elem en ts to a clai m of retaliatory di sc ha r g e i n the wor k er s’ c o m pen sa ti o n c o nt ex t. Buz i ns k imusts ho w ( 1) tha t he was the defen dan t’ s empl o y ee b efo r e hi s i nj ur y ; ( 2) tha t he e xe r ci se d a r i g htg r an te d b y the W or ker s’ Com pensati on Act; ( 3) and that hi s di schar ge w as causal l y c onnecte d to fi l i ng a w or ke rs ’ co m p en sa tio ncla im
. D ot s on , 520 F.3d at70 7. T h e firs t t w o p ro n gs are n otin di s pu t e . T he o nlyque s t i o n i s wh e the rBu z i ns k ic a n pr o v e c a us a t i o n. I fAmer i c a n ha d a val i d, non- prete xtualbas i s forte rm i nati ng em plo ym ent, Buzins kicannotsho w causa ti on an d h is c laim fails
. Se eM cCoy, 495 F.3d at 521 (7th C ir. 2007).

Rules 16 and 34 ofA m er i can Air l i nes Rul es and Regul ati ons— to w hi ch Buzins k iwas s ubj ec t as a n a i r cr aft fue l er — pr o hibi t “mi sr epr es en ta ti o n o ff ac ts ” an dN o. 09- 2680 Page 4

provi de that “[ d]i shones ty ofany ki nd i n re l ati ons w i th the co m pany i s . . . gr ounds f or dism i ssa l
. ” B uz inski tol d Shirl ey m ultiple tim es th at he cou ld n ot get to O ’H are for a hear i ng— ei therbydri vi ng hi m sel fo r tak i ng publ i c tr anspor tat i on— and yet surve i l l ance es ta b lish ed th at th is w as u n tr u e. B u zin sk i ad m itt ed as m u c h atth e N ov em b er 20 h ea rin g. B ecau se A m erican h ad a vali d , non -prete xt ua l bas is for term inating B uz inski’s em plo ym ent, hi s cl ai m f ai l s.

Forthes e r eas ons w e AF F I RM th e d istri ct cou rt’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm ent.