## 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 os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 S AN JAY A ND ON I S S A MY, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. H EWLET T -P ACK ARD C OMPAN Y, Q WEST C OMMUNI CAT I ONS AND K EN S MITH, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No s. 04 C 2521 &05 C3080

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2008

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 7, 2008

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . S anj ay A nd oni ssa m y w or ked as techni ci an f or H ew l ett
- Packar d, ass i gned to th e Q w est Cyber Center i n Chicag o, I l l i noi s, fro m A pri l20 01 to J une 200 3. H e br ought an em plo ym ent di scr i m i n at i on sui t a gainst Hew l ett
- Packar d i n the N orthern Dis tr i ct o f I ll inois after hi s te r m ina ti o n, al legi ng that H ew lett-Pack ard2 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390

cre ate d a hos ti l e workenvi ron m ent in vi ol ati on o f T itle V II, ret ali a t ed ag ain sth im for re p or tin g th e h os tile w ork envi ro nm ent t o hi s s up er i or s, and denie d him m edi call eave i n vi ol ati on o fthe Fam i l y a nd M edi calLeave A ct. A nd oni ssa m y al so sued Qw est f or vi ol atin g h is rig h ts u n d er 42 U .S.C
. § 19 81 , an d su ed K en Sm ith , his f o r m ers upe r vi so r, f o ra ss au l t unde rI l l i no i s l aw. The d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed A n d on iss am y’s as s a u lt c laim after Sm i th fi l ed a m oti on to dism i ss because the statute ofl i m i tat i ons had l apsed, and the re m ain d er o f A nd om i ssa m y’ s s uitu p on the defendants’ m oti on for su m m ary j udg m en t. A ndo ni ss amy a ppea l s o n the Tit l e VI Icl ai m s, the § 1 981 cl ai m , the Fam i l y a nd M edi cal L e a v e A c tc l a i m, a n d th e d i s mi s s a lo fth e a s s a u l tc l a i m. For the foll ow ing reason s , w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s g r an t o fthe m o ti o n fo rs um m ary j udg m en t an d the m oti on t o dism i ss.

I . B a c kg r o und S anj a y And o ni ssa m y b ega n w or ki ng f or H ew l e t t
- Pa c k a r d in Apr i l2 0 0 1 , a s a s y s t e ms e ng i neer ass i gned to the Qw estCyber C en teri n Chicag o. Andoni ss amy i s a ci ti ze n o fF r an ce o fIndi ane thni ci ty, a nd his em p loym en t w as bas ed on H ew lett-Pack ard ’s spon sorsh i p o fhi s H

- 1B vi sa . Cl as si fi ed as a TS G- 2 te chni ci an, A nd oni ssa m y’ s pri m ar y r esponsibi l i ti es i ncl ud ed provi ding techni calsupport to Q w estdata cente rs and to Qw estcusto m er s. Andoni ss amy and H ewl et t- Pa ck ar d o fferdi ve r g en t acco unts of A nd onni ssa m y’ s tenure w i th th e com pany.N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 3 A nd oni ssa m y a l l ege s that, in t h e wake ofS eptem ber11 , 2001 , S m i th cr eat ed a host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent b y di re cti ngnumer o us rac i stc o m m en ts a t Andoni ss amy, a nd that he was pla ced on r em edi alp er for m ance pl ans e i ther as r et al i at i o n fo rhi s co m pl aint s t o hum anr es o ur ce s ab o ut his w ork env ironm en t, or becau se of his su p e r v isor’ s per so na la ni m us to war ds hi m . Hewl et t- Pa ck ar d, o n the othe r hand , al l ege s that An donis sam y was an abusi ve and unprofess i onal co- w or ker w ho w as ter m i nated after th e c o m p an y g av e h im n u m er ou s w ar n in gs ab ou t h is i nsubor dinat i on a nd di sr espect ful com m ents. A n d on iss am y’s em p loy m en t d isc rim in at ion su it is base d on a s er ies ofco m m ents fro m S m i th. Fi rs t, A nd oni ssa m y c l ai m s that s om eti m e afterS eptem ber11 , Sm ith sa id in c on ve rs at ion w ith A n d on iss am y th at, “A ll o fAsi a sh o ul d b e smas he d, ” an d us ed hi s ha nds i n a w ay that i nd i cate d that he m eant So uth A si a s pec ifica l l y; seco nd , thatS m i th to l d A nd oniss am y that peo ple l i ke hi m s ho ul d b e ha ng ed fr o m t r ee s as Af r i ca n- Am er i ca ns ha d b ee n h an g ed; thi r d, tha t peo pl e o uto fc o l l eg e i n the U n i t e d S ta te s w er e u n ab le t o fin d j ob s b ec au se p eo p le l i ke A nd oni ssa m y had t ake n them ; f ourth, thatj obs sh oul d be r ese rv ed f orA m er i cans; fi fth, thatno m att er how m uch A nd oni ssa m y work ed he would n eve r be l i k e h i s c o - wo r k e r s ; s i x th, th a t S mi th c l a i me d wh e n r e v i e wi ng r esum es that he would l oo k forr esum es w i th Am e r i c a n - s o u n d i n gn a me s . A n d o n i s s a my a l s o c l a i ms th at he w as involved i n a fi gh t w ith tw o co-w orkers who ca l l ed Andoni ss amy a n “ I ndi anr ac i stb as ta r d” an d who the n s po k e wi th S mi th a ft e rthe fi g hte nd e d.4 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 A nd oni ssa m y c l ai m s that he expre sse d his frust ra ti on wi th S mi th s e v e r a l t i mes du r i ng hi s t e nu re with H ew l ett
- Packar d. H e sent c om pla i nts t o Russel lLew i s, S m i th ’ s su per vi so r, i n Oc tobe r2 00 2, Apri l2 003, a nd M ay 2003
. A nd oni ssa m y a l l ege s that in Octobe r 2002 and M ay 2003 , he w as iss ued perf or m ance warni ngs a ft e rc o mp l a i n i n gt o L e wi s . A n d o n i s s a my fi na l l y c l a i ms tha ti n M ay 200 3 , h e wa s s us pe nd e d a ft e rS mi th mad e a f a l s e r e po r tt o h u ma n r e s o u r c e s th a tA n d o n i s s a my had said “ W e wil lal lhave a bi g s urpri se, ” a r epor t that A nd oni ssa m y c l ai m s was desi gned to m ake h im l oo k l i ke a s ecuri ty thre at. H um an r eso urces then conducted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o th e r e ma r k, w h i c h A n d o n i s s a my cl ai m s l ed to hi s fi ring o n J une 23, 20 03. A nd oni ssa m y b ase s hi s F am i l y a nd M edi calLeave A ct cl aim o n hi s t re atm ent fordepres si on a nd anxi ety, wh i ch bega n a t s o me po i nt i n 2 0 0 2 a nd l a s t e d un t i l the e nd o f hi s e m plo ym ent with H ew lett- Packar d i n 200 3. S m i th l ea r ne d i n l at e 20 02 tha t Andoni ss amy t o o kmedi ca ti o n. A nd oni ssa m y c l ai m s that hi s co nd i ti on worse ned after th e d eath o fhi s br o th era nd ne phe w i n Mar ch2 00 3 an d A pri l20 03 , re specti vel y, and that he was not gi ven l eave t o a t t e n d th e i rfu n e r a l s . H e a l s o m i s s e d w o r ko n t wo o c c a s i o n s d u e t o i l l n e s s i n Ma y 2 0 0 3
. Wh i l e A n d o n i s s a my w as tak i ng m edi ci ne f or depressi on fro m 200 2 t o 2003 , hi s t re ating physi ci an exam i ned him o n f our separ ate oc c as ion s a n d d id n otp lac e a n y re st ric tio n s o n h is d aily acti vi ti es or w or k. N ordi d his physi ci an di agno se Andoni ss amy wi thc l i ni ca lde pr es si o n. H ew let t-P ac ka rd offe rs a d iffer en t v er sio n of ev en ts . In J anuary20 02, A nd oni ssa m y’ s sup er vi sor, K en S m i th, ga veN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 5 hi m hi s fi r stpe r f o r m an ce rev i ew. W hi l e S m i thf o und that A nd oni ssa m y’ s techni cal ski l l s w er e str ong, he also no t e d tha tAndo ni s s a my c o ul d i mpr o v e h i s r e l a t i o ns hi ps wi thc o - wor k er s an d c us to m er s. A few months a fte rthe fi rst p erform an ce review , several ofA nd onissam y’s col l eagues co m pla i ned th at A nd oni ssa m y had t re ate d them r ud el y, and Sm i th i nfo rm ed hi m o ftho se charg es i n an e - m ai l

. A notherco m p lain t, thatA nd oni ssa m y had been rude to a Q w es t em plo yee i n an e - m ai l, f ol l owed shor tl y there after
. In O cto ber20 02, S m i th pl aced A n d on iss am y on a p er for m an c e p lan to m on ito r h is w or k forf or ty- fi ve d ay s, aftera custo m ero fthe Qw est C yb er C en te r h a d n e tw or k ou ta ge s t h at w er e p ar tly att ributed to A nd oni ssa m y. H ew lett-Pack ard ’s conc erns abou t A n d onissam y’s p er for m an c e g re w . In 20 02 , A n d on iss am y re fu se d to tra in a co - w or kerto serve as hi s ba ck- up , despi te re peated re quests fro m S m i th thathe do so. On M ar c h 2 8, 2003 , Sm i th co ntacte d Lew i s about an ar gum ent he had w i th A nd oni ssa m y when the l att errefused to att end an i nstal l ati on fora c u sto m er . On M ar ch 31, 20 03, Caro l D ixon -W oolf olk, an em p loyee ofH ew lett-Pack ard ’s human r es o u r c e s d e p a r t me n t, b eg an i nv es ti g at i ng A nd oni ssa m y’ s perf or m ance i ssues . Duri ng heri nvest i gation, D ixon -W oo l f o l k i nt er vi ewe d Andon issam y’s co-w orkers, w ho rep orted that Sm ith freq ue nt ly bore th e b r u n to fA n d o n i s s a my ’ s ab us i v e y e l l i n g . T h o s e s a me co- w or ker s t est i fi ed that A nd oni ssa m y s cre am ed at th em an d t al k ed do wn to the m , s en t co nde sc en di ng e- m ai l s t o Qw estem plo yee s, and f ai l ed to m eetdeadl i nes orf ol l ow inst ructi ons.6 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 On A pri l16 , 20 03, Dixo n-W oo lfol k r eco m m ended that H ew l ett
- Packar d i ssue A nd oni ssa m y a per f or m ance w ar ni ng. S m i th i ssued thi s warni ng o n M ay 5, 20 03, al th o ugh Ando ni ss amy r efus ed to s i g n i t. The w arni ng l i st ed th e fi ve mos t r ec en t ex ampl es o fi ns ubo r di na ti o n a nd i napp ro pri ate cond uct, i ncl ud i ng two i nci dents thathad ca us e d a Q we s te mpl o y e e t o c o mpl a i n t o S mi th

. A nd oni ssa m y, i n re sponse to t he warni ng, then sent an e- m ai lt o Le wi s a nd Di xo n- W o o l f o l kc o m pl aini ngabo ut Sm i th. A fterthe w ar ni ng, A nd oni ssa m y c on tin ued to su bmi t wor kl at e, mis se d s ch edu l ed i ns ta ll ati o ns , a nd r e fus e d t o t r a i n a b a c k

- up . I n J une 200 3, i n re sponse to the conce rns ofQw est em plo yee s about A nd oni ssa m y’ s be havi or, Qw estr efused to au th orize A nd onissam y’s retu rn to th e C ybe r C e nt er. L e wi s th e n de c i d e d t o t e r mi n a t e A n d o n i s s a my ’ s e mplo ym ent, wh i ch he di d on J une 23, 20 03. On S ept embe r1 6, 2 00 3, Andonissam y fi l ed a co m pl aint w i th the Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on f ornati onalo ri gi n dis cri m i nati on a gainst Hew l ett
P a c k a r d

. Wh i l e h i s c o mp l a i n tc o n t a i n e d ma n y o fth e c l a i ms he m ake s in the prese nt l aw su i t, i t a pp ar entl y di d not i nc l ude the a l l eg at i o ns tha t S m i thha d s ai d Indi an s shoul d be “ hung from tr ees , ” o r that afterS eptem ber11 al lo fS outh Asia sho uld be wiped out. O n J anuary12 , 2004, the EE OC di sm i sse d the com pla i nt and i ssued A nd onissam y a ri gh t to sue letter. On A pri l7, 20 04, A nd oni ssa m y fi l ed a com pla i nt ag ai nst H ew l ett
- Packar d, add i ng a Fam i l y a nd M edi calLeave A ct com pla i nt o n M ay 23, 20 05, an d eventual l y j oi ni ng bo thN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 7 Qw estand Sm i th to the com pla i nt. On N ove m ber 10, 20 05, A nd oni ssa m y a l so ass er ted a cause of acti on a gainst S m i th f orassaul t un der I l l i noi s la w ; on M ay 18, 20 06, the dist ri ct co ur t g r an te d S m i th ’ s m o ti o n t o di smi ss thi s cl ai m . The dist ri ct c ourt gr anted sum m ar y j u d gm en t fo r H ew l ett
- Packar d, Qw est, and S m i th o n M ay 30, 20 07, and A nd oni ssa m y no w appeal s.

I I . Discussi on T h i s c o u r t r e v i e ws a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ary j udg m en t de no vo , c o ns trui nga ll fact s an d draw i ng al lr eas onabl e infe re nces base d on tho se f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the no n-m oving par ty. Tel em ark D eve lopm entGroup , I n c. v. M engel t, 31 3 F
. 3d 972, 97 6 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). Su m m ar y jud g m e n t is ap p ro p ria te “if th e ple ad in gs , th e d isc ov er y an d d isc los u re m a t er ials o n fi l e, a nd a ny a ffi dav i ts s ho w that th er e i s no g enui ne i ssue as to any m ate ri alfactand that the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw . ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Revi ew o fa dist rict co urt’ s g ra nt o fa m oti on t o dism i ss is d e n ov o. Wi tzkev. Fe m al, 376 F.3d 744 ( 7th Cir. 2 0 04). W he n ru ling on a m otion to d is m iss un d er Ru le 12(b) (6), th e co ur t ac ce pts a l lwel l

- pl ea ded al l eg at ions as t r ue an d dr aws a l lr ea so nabl e i nfer en ces in fa vo ro fthe pl aintiff. P orte r v. D iBlasio , 93 F .3d 30 1, 30 5 ( 7 th C ir. 19 96 ). A statu te of li m itations d efense , w hile not norm all y p art of a m otion un d er Ru le 12(b) (6), is a p p rop riate w he re “the al l ega ti ons ofthe com pla i nt i tse l fse t for th ev er ythi ng nece ssa ryto sa ti sfy the affi rm ati ve defe n se , s u ch as w h en a c om p lain t p lain ly r e ve als th at anac tio n is8 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390

u n tim ely u n d er th e g ov e r n in g s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s.” U nite d States v. Lewis , 411 F.3d 838 , 842 (7th C ir. 2005).

A . Th e Ti t l e VII and 42 U.S. C. § 1981 cl ai m s. 1 . T i t l e VI I c l a i m. T h e firs t is su e is w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o H ew lett

- Packar d on Andoni ss amy’ s ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t cl ai m . “ To su r vi ve s um m ary j udg m en t o n a ho st il e wor ke nv i r o nm ent c l aim based on nat i onalo ri gi n, a pla i nti ffm ust est abl i sh that : ( 1) he was s ubj ecte d to unw el com e haras sm en t, ( 2) the hara ssm ent was ba sed o n hi s nat i onal or i gi n, ( 3) the hara ssm ent was se ver e a nd per vasi ve en o ugh t o a l te rthe c o ndi ti o ns o fhi s en vi r o nm en t an d cr ea te a ho st i l e and a bus i ve wor k i nge nv i r o nm en t, a nd ( 4) ther e i s a bas i s forem plo yerl i abi l i ty. ” Vel ez v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 4 4 2 F .3d 10 43 , 104 7 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). “T itle V II p ro te c ts a w o rk er ag ain stco n d u c t w h ich is su fficie n tly se ve r e o rpe r va si ve tha t a reaso nabl e per so n wo ul d fi nd i t ho sti l e a nd wh i ch the vi cti m hi m sel fsubj ecti vel y s ees as abusi ve. ” Nge unj unt rv. M e t r opol i t an Li f eIns . Co. , 1 46 F. 3d 464 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ci ti ng Har r i s v. Fo rkl i f tSy s t e m s, Inc. , 510 U
. S. 17 (1993)). Cou r ts ex ami ne a va r i ety o f f ac to r s when evalu at i ng w hethera w or kpl ace i s ho sti l e, in cl ud i ng the fre quency ofthe supp ose d di scr i m i natory conduct; the seve ri ty ofi t; w hetherthe conduct i s physi cal l y threa teni ng o r hum i l i ati ng o r a m er e o ffensi ve uttera n c e; and w hetheri t unre asonab l y int er feres w i th an em plo yee ’ s j ob perf or m ance. Harris v. Forklif

t Syste m s, Inc. , 510 U
. S. 17, 23 (1993).N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 9 T he district cou rt rej ect e d A nd onissam y’s hostile w ork envi ro nm en t cl ai m bec ause i t dete rm i ned that, ev en ass um i ng S m i th had m ade ev ery c om m ent a ttr ibuted to hi m , the com m ents w er e insuffi ci ent a s a m att ero fl aw to s up po r t a c l a i m fo r na t i o na l o r i g i n di s c r i mi na ti on, a nd , seco nd , bec ause A nd oni ssa m y had notdem onst ra ted a b as is forem plo yerl i abi l i ty. A nd oni ssa m y a rgues o n appeal that t h er e i s s uffi ci ent e vi dence f ora j ury to fi nd that he w as subj ecte d to a ho sti l e workenvi ro nm ent. H e l i sts o nce ag ai n Sm i th’ s a l l ege d r em ar ks, and ar gues th atthe y de m o ns tr at e ano bj ec ti ve l y ho st i l e at m o sph er e b a s e d o n hi s n a t i o na lo r i g i n. He wl e t t
- Pa ckar d r e s po nd s that the dist ri ct cour t proper l y f ound the co m m ents i ns uffi ci en t as a matt ero fl aw, a nd tha t m an y o fthe al l ege d rem ar ks cannot eve n b e attr ibuted to nati onal o r i g i n di sc r i m i na ti o n. W e do n ot n eed to r each the questi on o fwh ether Sm ith’s com m en ts are su ffici en t to s up p ort a hostile w ork en vir o nm en t cl ai m . Ev ena ss um i nga r g ue ndo tha t th e r e m a r k s c r e a t e d ah o s t i l e w o r ke n v i r o n me n t, A n d o n i s s a my h as n otes ta b lis h e d a ba sis for e m p loy er liab ility in t h is c as e. U n d er T itle V II, an e m p l o ye r c an be vic ar iou sly li able for a hos til e w or k env ironm en t created by a sup ervi so r, b uti s o nl y l i ab l e f or a hos ti l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t c re at ed by a c o-w or ke r if th e e m p loy er w a s n eg lige n t in d isc ov er i n g o r re m ed yin g th e h ar as sm en t. V elez , 44 2 F
. 3d at 1047
. A “s up er vi sor ” for p u rpos es ofTi tl e VI Ii s no t si mply a p e r s o n wh o p o s s e s s e s a u th o r i ty t o o v e r s e e th e pla i nti ff’ s j ob perf or m ance, but a per son w i th the pow erto d irectly affect the ter m s a n d cond iti ons of th e plaintiff’s em p loy m en t. Id ; s e eal s o Hall v. Bod ine E le c. Co. , 27 6 F
. 3d 34 5, 3 55 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. In thi s ci r cui t, the t erm mean s10 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 gen e r a l l y a pe r s o n wi th “ the a utho r i ty t o hi r e , fi r e , pro m ote , dem ote , di sci pline o r tr ansfer. . . ” R hod es v. Ill in o is D ept
. of Tr ans p. , 3 59 F
. 3d 49 8, 5 06 (7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. S m i th, w hi l e An donis sam y’ s “superv i sor ” i n the c ol l oqui alse nse ofthe w or d, did notposs ess the author i ty that w oul d m ake hi m a supervi sorf orpurpo ses o fTi tl e VI I
. H e di d not hi re o r fi re A nd oni ssa m y, and w hi l e he re com m ended disc i plinaryact i on, the re cor d show s that hum an r eso ur ce s fi r stha d t o c ond ucta n inv es ti g at i o n a nd i ss ue a re c om m en d at ion be for e a n y d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n co u ld be t ak en . A nd o n is s a m y a r g u e s th a tSm it h d ir e c t e d A nd onissam y’s perf or m ance a nd r eco m m ended d i sci plinaryact i on t o hum an r eso urces , and th u s quali fi es as a s up er vi sor for p urp oses of Title V I I
. H ow ever, as the d istri ct cou rt co r r ec tly no te d in i ts s um m ary j udg m en t o pi ni o n, d ir ectin g w ork activiti es an d recom m en d ing d iscipli na ry action a re noti n and ofthem sel ves suffi ci ent t o m ake so m eo n e a su p er vis or u n d er T itle V II. See R ho des , 359 F. 3d at 506. Rather, A nd oni ssa m y w oul d have t o po i ntt o e vi dence tha t S m i thc o ul d di r ec tly a ffec t th e te r m s an d c o ndi ti o ns o fhi s empl o y m en t. Aga i n, A n d on iss am y m u stp ro d u c e e v id en c e t h at Sm ith co u ld hi re , fi re , prom ote , dem ote , disc i pline ortr ansferhi m . S uch evi dence i s s i m p ly n ot i n the re cor d. Sm i th nei ther hi r ed no rfi r ed An d oni ss amy; the de po si ti o n t es ti m o ny in d ica te s t h at R u ss ell L ew is, n otSm ith , m ad e t h e d ec isi ons to hi re and fi re A nd oni ssa m y. N or coul d Sm ith demot e o rd i s c i p l i n e An d o n i s s a my ; h e c o u l d r e c o mme nd that the com p any di sci pline an em plo yee , but such acti on was subj ect to an i nvest i gat i on a n d a p prova lfro m h u ma n r e s o u r c e s , a n d th e d e c i s i o n w a s n o tu p t o h i m.N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 11 A nd onissam y attem p ts to estab li sh li abili ty un d er “cat’s p aw ” doct rine, ar gui ng tha t Lewis and the hum an r eso u rc es d ep a r t m en t w er e jus t a sc re en for Sm ith ’s d ec isi ons. The “ca t’ s paw” doctrine does cr eat e a bas i s for empl o y erli ab i l i tywhenas i ng l e i ndi vi duall ac k s th e re q u isit e p ow er o f a T itle V II su p er vis or . See Phel an v. Cook C ounty, 463 F.3d 77 3 , 7 8 4 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); s e eal s o S hage rv. Upj ohn Co. , 9 13 F
. 2d 39 8, 4 05 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 0)
. The doctr i ne i s no t hel pfu l t o A nd oni ssa m y in thi s ca se, how ever, becau se it app li es only in those cases w he re n o one i nd i vi du al posse sse s the pow er s of a Title V II s u p e r v i s o r( s u c h a s th e h y d r a - h e a d e d s u p e r v i s o r y c o mm i ttee thi s co ur t r ev i ewe d i n Phel an )
. In th i s c a s e , h o wever, Ru ssell L ew is ulti m ately m ad e the d ecision to hire and fir e A nd oni ssa m y, and thus he has the autho ri ty of a T i tl e V I Is u p e r v i s o r . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, th e “ c a t ’ s p a w” d oc tri ne has been appli ed i n case s where com m i tte e deci si ons ar e no t ind ependent and app ear t o b e take n w ith ou t c on d u c tin g a n y re al in ve st iga tio n . See Sh ager, 91 3 F .2d at40 5. H er e, h ow ev er , h u m an res ou rc es inv es tig a t e d t h e c o mp l a i n t s a g a i n s tAn d o n i s s a my b e f o r e r e c o mm ending disc i plinaryact i on, and ther e is n o evi dence th atthe de par tmentwas s i m pl y a l eg als m o k es cr ee n. A n d on iss am y d oe s n ote st ab lish th at H ew let t-P ac ka rd is l i ab l e f o rf a i l i n gt o d e t e c to rr e med y th e a l l e g e d d i s c r i minatory en vironm e nt
. To esta bli sh that H ew lett-Pack ard i s l i ab l e f o r f ai l i ng to r emedy a ho st i l e work env i r o nm en t cre ate d by co

- w or ker s, A nd oni ssa m y w oul d need to demons tr at e th athe no ti fi ed the e m pl o y erabo utthe hara ssm ent o r that the har ass m ent was so per vasi ve that a jur y c ou ld infe r h is e m p loy er kn ew ab ou t it
. See Z im m er m an v. C ookCo unty Sher if f’s D ept. , 96 F. 3d 1017( 7th12 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390

Thi s c l ai m i s , t o puti tm i l dl y, pr obl em at i c. I n h i s ope ni ng 1 br i e f, An do nis sa m y a l l e ge s tha th e wa s a s s a ul t e d a twor k by t wo co - worke rs an d ci t es , i n s uppor tofthis c ont en t i on, the d ep osition testim on y of H an s Sterlin. T he relev an t excerp ts from t h e d ep osition testim on y , ho w ev er, are Ster lin’s d en ia ls t hatsuc h a n a t t a c k e v e r t o o k p l a c e . F o r i n s t a n c e : “ Q: Di d Ba yo h i t S a nj a y ? A: No
. Q: Di d y o u h o l d th e do o r c l o s e d wh i l e Bayo hi tSa nj ay? A: No. ” S t er l i n Dep. at41 ( om i t t i ng a n ob jec t i on to t h e f orm ofthe s econd questi on). Y et A nd onis sam y ci tes thi s tes ti m ony as though it is ev idence of the cl aim
. St erl in r efers to a ve rba l al t er c at i on i n whi c h a nothe r c o- worke r obj ec t ed to A n d o n i s s a my ’ s o r d e r s th a th e p r i n ts o me d o c u me n t s f o r h i m; the re is nothi ng i n thi s t es t i m ony s uppor t i ng the c l ai m thatthe fi gh twa s rac i a l l y m ot i va t e d o r tha ti te s c a l a t e d b e yo nd a v erb al d isag reem en t. Cir
. 1996 )
. I n hi s bri ef s to thi s cour t, A nd oni ssa m y cites the fi ght with hi s co - w or ker s a s a n i nstance o fnati onal or igin d isc rim in at ion th at H ew let t-P ac ka rd was ne gli gen t for not rem ed ying. Th is inc id en t, how ever, 1 wa s n o t me n t i o n e d i n An d o n i s s a my ’ s E E O C l e t t er a nd th e al l eg at i o n a ppea r ed f o rthe f i r stti m e i n thi s l i ti g at i o n. Even ass um i ng tha t the cl ai m i s no t ba rr ed, t h i s was a sing l e inci den t, a nd Ando ni ss amy do es no t pr es en t ev idence tha t he b r o ughtthe i nc i den t to a ny o ne ’ s at te nti on. W hi l e he did se nd an e - m ai lto Lew i s a nd to hum an re so u rc es on M ay 6, 20 03 co m p lain in g a b ou t Sm ith , th is e- m ai ldi d not co ntai n a lleg ati ons ofnati onalo ri gi n dis

cri m i nati on; the onl y re fer ence i n the e- m ai li s a r efer ence to A n d on iss am y’s im m igr an t s ta tu s, w h ich is n otits elf a co m pl ai nt a bo utna ti o na lo r i g i n di sc r i m i na ti o n a nd w oul d not e stablish that Hew l ett
- Packar d i s l i abl e for fai ling to act on th e all eg a t io n . A ccord ingly, w e affirmN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 13 th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s s u m m a r y ju d gm en t d ec isio n on th is count.

2 . § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m. W hen pursui ng a § 1 981 cl ai m , a pla i nti ffcan proce ed by ei ther the dir ect ori nd i re ct m etho d. The dir ect m etho d r equi r es the pl aint i fft o pr o duce e vi den ce tha t th e defen da nt s we r e mo t i v a t e d b y a ni mus b a s e d u po n hi s n a t i o nal or i gi n w h en h e w as denie d som e e m plo ym ent b enefi t o r su ffer ed so m e a d ve rs e em p loy m en t a c tio n . Sun v. Boar d of Trus te es of U niv. of Ill
. , 47 3 F
. 3d 79 9, 81 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The ind irect m eth od requ ires d em ons trating th at (1) p lai nt iff i s a m em b er of a p ro te c te d cla ss ; (2) h e w as m ee tin g h is em plo yer ’ s l egi ti m ate p er f or m ance e xpectati ons; ( 3) he suffer ed an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on; ( 4) ot h er si m i l ar l y si tu at ed empl o y ee s who wer e no t par t of the sa m e c las s w er e t r e at ed m or e fa vo ra b ly. Fan ev. Lo cke Rey nol ds, LL P , 480 F.3d 534 , 538 (7th C ir. 2007). Wh i l e A nd o n i s s a my ’ s b r i e f s me n t i o n th e § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m, ther e i s nothi ng in ei therbr i efdi scussing the el em ents of a c laim u n d e r e ith er th e d ire c t o r in d ire c t m et h od . H is di s c us s i o n o fthe § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m in hi s o pe ningb r i e fo v e r l a ps en ti r ely wi ththe ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t cl ai m . At a ny ra te , un d er th e d ire c t m et h o d A n d on iss am y h as sim p ly not produced evi dence thathi s t er m in ati on o r any o ther advers e e m plo ym ent a cti on was bas ed on his nati onal or igin, an d ind ee d th e re c or d in d ica te s th at h e w as te rm inated o nl y after hum an r eso urces co nd ucted an invest i gati on i nt o a n umb e ro fi ns ub o r di na t e i nc i de nt s a nd a ft er the c om p an y issued hi m a perf or m ance warni ng r e-14 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 g a r di ngh i s c o nd uc t
. Wi th r e s pe c tt o the i nd i r e c tme tho d, Andoni ss amy i s unabl e to meetthe s ec o nd pr o ng of the tes t ba sed o n the ava i l abl e r eco rd. Qw estexpre sse d to H ew l ett
- Packar d i ts concerns abo ut m i ssin g docum entati on r ega rdi ng the ir sys tem s, and re fused to approv e A nd oni ssa m y’ s r etur n to t h e Cybe r Center, and H ew l ett
Packar d had i ssued h i m a perf or m ance w ar ni ng ba sed o n a n u m b e r o fin c id en ts be tw ee n A n d on iss am y a n d h is supervi sor s a nd co - w or ker s. A nd oni ssa m y thus cannot demons tr at e th athe was meet i ngthe i rl egitim at e ex p e c t a t i o n s a t th e t i me h e wa s fi r e d

. No rd i d A n d o n i s s a my p ro vid e e vid en c e d em on st ra tin g th at ot h er , sim ilar ly situat ed em p loyees fr om differen t nat ion al or igins w ere tr eat ed m or e f avo rab ly. W e thus affi rm the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s s u m m ar y jud gm en t d ec isio n on th is c ou n t a s w ell.

B . R e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. A nd onissam y’s ne xt argu m en t is th at th e d istri ct c o u rt im p rop erly d ism issed his clai m that H ew lett-Pack ard r et al iated a g ains t hi m f o rno ti fy i ngs upe r i o r s ab o utthe host i l e workenvi ro nm ent. To es tabl i sh a cl aim for r eta l i ati on, an e m plo yee can proce ed und ero ne of t w o m etho ds. U nd erthe dir ect m etho d, a n e m pl o y ee m us t demons tr at e th at( 1) he e ngag ed i n sta tutor i l y pr ote cted a c ti vi ty; ( 2) he s uffer ed an adve r se a ct i o n t ak enb y hi s empl o y er ; a nd ( 3) there w as a ca usalco nnecti on be tw een the st atutorily pro

te c te d ac tiv ity an d th e ad ve r s e ac tio n . Tom ano vich v. City of Indianap olis , 45 7 F
. 3d 656, 66 2- 63 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. U n d er th e i ndi r ec t m etho d, a pl aint i ffmustpr o ve tha t ( 1) he en ga ge d in s ta t u t o r i ly p ro te c te d ac tiv ity ; (2) h e m eth isN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 15

em plo yer ’ s l egi ti m ate exp ec tati ons; ( 3) he s uffer ed an advers e e m plo ym ent a cti on; and ( 4) he was t re at ed l ess fav or ab ly th an sim ilar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee s w h o d id not engag e in sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty. Id. T h e d ist ric t cou rt ru led , firs t, th at A n d on iss a m y c ou ld n o tma k e a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m b e c a u s e h e n e v e rc o mp lai ne d to H ewl et t- Pa ck ar d ab o ut discrim inatory behavi or a n d so neve r engag ed i n sta tutor i l y pr ote cted acti vi ty. S eco n d , the cour t found that the ti m i ng o f H ewl et t- Pa ck ar d’ s ac ti o ns was no t su spi ci o us , a s th e r ec o r d i ndi ca te d tha t A ndo ni ss amy c o m pl aine d abo ut Sm i th o n M ay 6, 20 03 , which was the day a fterS m i th se r ve d hi m wi tha pe r f o r m an ce war ni ng b ase d o n Di xo nW o o l f o l k ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n. A nd oni ssam y ar gues that he can prove hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m vi a the di re ct m etho d. H e cl ai m s that hi s e - m ai lto L ew is on M ay 6, 20 03 , w h ich m ak es refe re n c e t o h is i m m i gr ant s tatus, was suffi ci en t to const i tute a r epor t o f disc ri m i nati on under Titl e VI I
. A nd oni ssa m y a l so ar g ue s th a tth e t i mi n go fh i s t e r mi n a t i o n, a ft e rD i x o nW oo l f ol k h ad com ple ted heri nvest i gat i on o fS m i th, was suspi c ious. A nd oni ssa m y’ s M ay 6, 20 03 e- m ai ldoes c o n t a i n a l i t a n y o fc o mpl a i n t s ab o u tKe n S mi th, abo ut A nd oni ssa m y’ s worksche du l e, and abo ut hi s hi gh- press u r e clie n t w or k, bu t n ot h in g th at a re ad er w ou ld i nt er p ret a s a co m pla i nt o fnati onalo ri gi n dis cri m i nati on. W hi l e a r epor t o fdi scr i m i nati on t o a s up er vi sor m ayb e st atut o r i l y pr o te ct ed ac ti vi tyunde rT itl e VI I, the re port m u st i ncl ud e a co m pla i nt o fnati onalo ri gi n dis

c rim in at ion or s u fficie n t fac ts to rais e t h at infe re n c e. See16 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 Tom ano vich , 457 F. 3d at 66 3; se e also Si tar v. Indiana D ept. of Tr ans p. , 344 F.3d 720 , 727 (7th C ir. 2003). Inh is d ep os itio n, A n d on iss am y a d m itt ed th at h e d id n otinc lu d e h is c om p lain ts ab ou t n at ion al or igin d isc rim inati on in hi s co rre sp ondence with Lew i s a nd hum an re so u rc es bu t p lan n ed to m en tio n th os e c om p lain ts if anyo ne fro m the hum an r eso urces departm ent c ontac ted hi m dur i nga n inv es ti g at i o n. At b es t, this rai se s ani nfer en c e t h at A n d on iss am y p lan n ed to en ga g e in s t a tu t o r i l y p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i ty, b u ti td o e s n o ta mo unt to sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty i n i ts own r i ght. Mo r e o v e r, w i th r e s p e c tt o th e th i r d e l e me n to ft h i s c l a i m, A nd oni ssa m y’ s p u rp or ted causa lco nnecti on a ri ses fro m n ot h in g m or e th an su sp icio u s tim in g. H ow ev er , th is c irc u it h as h eld th at “[s ]u sp icio u s t im in g a lon e r ar ely is suffi ci ent to cre ate a tr i abl e i ssue. ” Tom ano vich , 45 7 F
. 3d at 665. On sum m ar y j ud gm en t, i n part i cul ar, “i t i s cl earthat m er e te m po r alpr o xi m i tyi s no t en ou gh to e st ab l i sha ge n u i ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act. ” W yn ing er v. New V

entu re G ear, Inc. , 36 1 F
. 3d 965, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2 004)
. Thus, ev en if th is c ou rtw e r e t o a c c ep t t h at A n d on iss am y’s e-m ail was a c o m pl ainto fna ti o na lo r i g in d i sc r i m i na ti o n, he could notpro du ce age nuine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act f or tr i al

. Thi s i s par ti cul ar l y t ru e since the r epor t in thi s ca se o c c ur r ed af t e rAnd o ni s s a my ha d a l r e a dyr e c e i v e d a perf or m ance wa rn i ng f orthe ver y s am e co nd uct that u l t i ma t e l y l e d t o h i s t e r mi n a t i o n . No rc o u l d A n d o n i s s a my mak e a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m un de rthe i nd i r e c tme thod, gi ven the o ngoing co m p lai nts about hi s j ob perf or m ance an d hi s i nabi l i tyt o de m o ns trate tha t he was meet i ngN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 17 h is e m p loy er ’s le git im at e e x p ec ta tio n s a t t h e t im e o f h is te r m i na ti o n. Fi nal l y, ther e i s the i ssue of w hetherthi s cl ai m i s pro cedu ra l l y b ar re d b ecause o fA nd oni ssa m y’ s f ai l ure to m ak e a r et al i at i o n c ha r g e i n h i s EEOC l et te r . U nde rthe law of th is c irc u it, “a T itle V II p lain tiff m ay br in g on ly th os e c laim s t h a t w er e in c lu d ed in h er E E O C ch ar ge .” M cKe nzi ev. Ill. D ept
. of Tr ans p. , 92 F. 3d 473, 481 (7th Cir. 1996 )
. A nd oni ssa m y c oncedes i n hi s r epl y b ri efthat hi s o ri gi nalco m pla i nt to the EE OC di d n ot incl ud e a re tal i ati on cl ai m . H owever, he c l ai m s that the r etali ati on cl ai m gr ew o ut o fhi s o ri ginalal l ega ti ons, and that he i nc l ud e d the a l l e g a t i o ns i n a l e t t e rt o the EE OC. H ew let t-P ac ka rd an tic ip at ed th is c on t e n tio n in t h eir r e s po ns e b r i e f, c i t e d Ch e e k v . We s t e r n L i f e In s . Co. , 3 1 F. 3d 497, 50 2- 03 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) , and argued that und er the l aw o fthi s ci rcui t, subsequent l ett er s t o the EEO C can o n l y “ c l a r i fy o ra mp l i fy ” a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e o r i g i n a lc o mp lain t, an d ca n n otst at e a d d itio n al c om p lain ts
. Id. ( ci ting 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 6 0 1
. 1 2 ( b ) )
. T he a pp l i c ab l e r e g ul a t i on s do h old th at an am en d m en t t o a c om p lain t c an alleg e “ ad d iti onalact s which co nsti tute unlawful em plo ym ent pr acti ce s r el at ed to o rg r o wi ng o ut o f th e su bj ec t m at te ro fthe o r i g i na lc ha r g e. ” 29 C. F.R. § 16 01
. 12 ( b)

. Howev er, the retaliati on claim at i ssu e here arose from A nd oniss a m y’s te r m i na ti o n, w hi chi nv o l ve s co nduc t di ffer en t fr o m the h o s t i l e w o r ke n v i r o n me n tc l a i m th a tA n d o n i s s a my raise d i n h i s EEOC co m pl aint
. The a ddi ti o na lc o m pl aint thus doe s n ot gr ow out o fthe al l ega ti ons i n the i ni ti al c om p lain t, an d th ey are rela te d t o t h e a lleg at ion s o n ly insof ara s th eyi nv o l ve s o m e o fthe s ame s upe r vi sors18 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 and the s am e j ob. U l ti m ate l y, h ow ever, we need not deci de w hetherA nd oni ssa m y’ s cl ai m i s ba rr ed, bec ause he f ai l s t o p re sent evi dence r ai si ng a m ate ri ali ssue of fact on th e elem en ts of his cla im . A ccord ingly, w e affirm the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o n sum m ar y j ud gm ent.

C . F a mi l ya n d Me d i c a l L e a v e Ac tc l a i m. And o ni s s a my ne xta r g ue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpr o per l y di sm issed his cl ai m thatH ew l ett
- Packar d denied hi m l ea ve unde rthe F ami l y a nd M edi ca lLe av e Act. The di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th i s cl ai m a t sum m ary j udg m en t f ortwo r eas ons. F irs t, because the re cor d i nd i cate d that Andoni ss amy’ s tr ea tingphysi ci anha d ne ve rpl ac ed an y r es tr i ct i o ns o n hi s dai l y ac ti vi ti es o rhi s wor k, a nd tha t he wa s no t di a g no s e d wi th c l ini c a l de pr e s s i o n. S eco nd , be ca us e whi l e Andoni ss amy c o r r ec tly a r g ue d tha t th e F M LA e nt i t l e s e mpl o y e e s t o pe r i o di c l e a v e , he ma de no allegation tha t his d octor believed he req uire d i nt erm i tte nt l eave, or thathe hi m sel fbel i eve d that he r equir ed i nter m i tte nt l eave . H ew l ett
- Packar d argues that thi s cl ai m f ai l s becau se A nd oni ssa m y nev err equeste d i nter m i tte nt l eave under th e FM L A
. A nd onissam y argu es in his ap p ell ate b r ief s that hi s f ai l ure to re quest l eave i s i rr el evant, as the change i n hi s be havi or w as suffi ci ent t o pla ce Hew l ett
- Packar d on n o t i c e th a th e n e e d e d i n t e r mi t t e n tl e a v e . T he r e i s s o me au th o r i tyf o rthe i dea th at ane m pl o y ee ’ s co nduc t ca n put an em p loy er on n ot ice o ft h e n ee d for lea ve . See Byrn ev. A von P roducts, Inc. , 328 F.3d 37 9 (7 th C ir. 20 0 3 ); see also St e ve ns on v. HyreEle ct r i c Co. , 50 5 F.3d 72 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). InN os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 19 th o s e c a s e s , a n e mp l o y e rha d a d e q u a t e n o t i c e o fa n e mplo yee ’ s need f or i nter m i tte nt l eave base d o n a sud den change i n ci rcum sta nces. H owever, bo th o fthes e ca ses involved dram atic and sud d en cha ng es in an em p loyee’s behavi or, and r equests f or at l eas t m i ni m al l eave tim e. N ei thero ftho se f acto rs appli es in the prese nt cas e. A n d on iss am y h ad be en rep rim a n d ed th ro u gh ou t h is em plo ym ent with H ew l ett
- P ac kar d fo r hi s inapp ro pri ate be ha vi o r, a nd s o the r e was no dr amat i c ch an g e when he be g ant ak i ngde pr es si o n medi ca ti o n. M o r eo ve r, the cl ose st thi ng t h at A nd oni ssa m y m ade to a re quest for m ed ica l leav e w as a re q u es t fo r tim e o ff to at te n d h is nephew ’ s funerali n I nd i a. Thi s was n ot a request f orsi ck ti m e, however, and i t i s di ffi cu lt to const rue thi s a s a requ est for FM L A l eave . W e th us affi rm th e d istri ct cou rt’s sum m ary j ud gm ent o rdero n thi s cl ai m bec ause A nd oni ssa m y di d not g i ve H ew l ett
- Packar d no tice of any ne ed f orFM LA l eave .
D . W h eth erA nd onis samy’s assaul tcl ai m r el at ed back t o the ori gi nal plea ding. A nd onissam y fina ll y argue s tha t the di strict cou rt i m proper l y dism i sse d hi s ass aul t cl ai m aga i nst Sm ith u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6) be c au s e it w as ba rre d by th e Illino is st atut e ofl i m i ta ti o ns . Andon i ss amy a r g ue s th atthe cl ai m rel at es b ac kt o the t i m e o fthe o r i g i na lfi l i ng u n d er Fe d er a l R u le of C ivil P ro c ed u re 15 (c ), be c au se h is or i gi nalco m pla i nt and se cond am ended com pla i nt al l ege d phy si ca l i nt i m i dat i o n an d ha r as sment by K en S m i th

. H ow ev er , K en Sm ith w a s n otn am ed as a d efe n d an t in20 N os. 07

- 2387& 07

- 2390 thi s l aw sui t unti lOctobe r 200 5, som e fi ve m onths after I l l i n o i s ’ t wo - y e a rs t a tu t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s f o ra s s a u l tc l a i ms ex p ire d

. See75 IL C S 5/13-202. A s H ew lett-Pack ard corre ctl y points o ut, the am ended com plai nt al so i nvol ved no t o nly a ne w de fe nd a nt b ut a ne w c l a i m a g a i ns t a new defendant. Federal Rul e o fCi vi lPro cedure 15( c) ( 3) per m i ts a cl ai m ag ai nst a new d efendant to rela te bac k t o an or i gi nalti m ely p l eadi ng f orpurposes o fthe sta tute of l i m i tat i ons onl y i fther e was an id en titym i sta ke as to the pr operparty t o be nam ed and that m i sta ke i s char geabl e t o th e n ew defendant. W hat we have i n thi s ca se, ho we v e r, i s a s t r a i g ht f o r wa r d a s s a ul tc l a i m m a de aga i nst a defendant w ho was A nd oni ssa m y’ s s up er vi sor f ortwo ye ar s; the re is n o chance o fa genui ne i denti ty m i st ak e he r e, nor d oes Andoni ss amy a l l eg e o ne . The d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d th e c l a i m.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM th e d istri ct cou rt’s or der o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

11- 7- 08