# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals
For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604

Submi tte d May 7, 2014 * Deci ded May 8, 2014

Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Ju dge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circ uit Judge

ILANA DIAM OND ROVNER, Circ uit Judge

No. 13-3023

CORA McMOR RIS , Plaintiff–Appell ant,

v.

AMERI CAN SENIO R COM MUNITIES and CARDINAL NURS ING & REHABILITATION CENTER Defen dants–Appellees

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Courtfor t he Nort hern Di stric t of Indi ana, South Bend Di vis i on.

No. 3:12cv264

Phi li p P. Si mon, Chief Ju dge.

O R D E R NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only in acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After exami ning the briefs and the recor d, we have conclu ded that o ral * arg ument i s unnecess ary . The appeal thus i s submi tte d on the briefs and the recor d. See F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 34(a)( 2)(C).No. 13-3023 Page 2

C or a McMor ris, former ly a nursing assi stant at Cardinal Nursing and Reh ab i l i ta ti on Center , challen ges the g r a nt o f sum mary judgment again st her in thi s employment di scri minati on sui t under 42 U.S .C. § 2000e. We affi rm.

McMor ris, who i s Afric an-Ameri can, brought thi s sui t asserti ng race di scri minati on and a hosti le work environment again st Cardinal, a seni or housing and health faci li ty, as well as the company that manages the faci li ty, America n S e nio r Communi ties

. Thi s sui t aris es out of a mund ane i nci dent that occurred soon after McMor ris ’s hi ring. According to McMor ris, a loud arg ument brok e out after a whi te nurse “snatched” a pen from her hand,
caus ing her “almost” to lose her balanc e. A supervis or ov erhear d the commoti on, hurried to the scen e, and told the two women to lower their vo i ces, but McMor ris i gnor ed her and walked away. After an i nvestigati on Cardinal sus pended McMor ris wi thout pay for three d a y s for di srupti ve conduc t and i nsubordinati on; the other nurse was not sus pended. McMor ris later was pai d for those days, but she sti ll fi led a charge wi th the Equal Employment Oppor tuni ty Commi ssi on (EEOC) allegin g race di scri minat ion. Thi s sui t followed.

McMor ris later moved under Feder al Rule of Ci vil Procedure 1 5 t o a mend her complaint to incorpor ate allegations of r etaliatory conduc t that had occurred after her EEOC charge was fil e d

. A magi strat e judge deni ed her request as premature —and consequen tly futile—because McMor ris fai led to show that she had received an EEOC right-to-sue letter relat ed to t he ret ali ation c lai m.
The di stric t co ur t event ually gr anted sum mary judgment to the defendants. The court conclu ded that McMor ris fai led to prov i de suffi ci ent evidence t ha t C ardin al
sus pended her wi th di scri minator y in tent o r t hat she worked in a h ostile envi ro nment.

On appeal M cMor ris fi rst challen ges the magi strat e judge’ s ruli ng denyi ng her motion t o amend her complaint to add a clai m of retaliati on. But as t he magi strat e judge proper ly found, M cMor ris had no t yet obtained the requis i te right-to-sue let ter from the EEOC concerning thi s clai m. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1); Brown v. Ill. Dep’t of Natural Res. , 499 F.3d 675, 681 n.5 (7th Ci r. 2007); Conner v. Ill. D e p ’ t of Natural Res. , 413 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Ci r. 2005).

McMor ris also asserts that the court err ed by consi dering evidenc e outsi de the
recor d, namely, a secu rity video that repo rt edly captured some part of the pen-s natching inci dent. She apparently beli eves that the court’s refer ences in i ts or der to the video rev eal that the court watched the video and relied on i t. But McMor ris mi sapprehends the court’sNo. 13-3023 Page 3

explanation; i ts ci tations reflect that i t was rely in g on a repo rt in whi ch Cardinal ’s executive di recto r describes vi ewing the v i deo as part o f her i nvestigati on of the inc i dent.

McMor ris also conten d s t hat the court should not have consi dered Cardinal ’s investigati on repo rt becau se it was i nadmi ssi ble and not proper ly authenti cated. But the repo rt was supp or ted by an affi davit of Cardinal ’s human resources di recto r asserti ng that the repo r t wa s p r epared shortly after the inci dent by Cardinal ’s executive di recto r, who had personal knowledge of the inv esti gation. See F E D

. R. E VI D

. 901; Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ. , 462 F.3d 762, 779 (7th Ci r. 2006). In the repo rt, Cardinal ’s executive di recto r explain s that she deci ded to suspend McMorr i s bas ed on her interviews wi th wi tnesses and what she s aw on the video.

Fin ally, we agr ee wi th the di stric t court that even i f McMor ris had establi shed a primafacie case of race di scri minati on, there i s no evidenc e in the recor d that Cardinal acted wi th a di scri minator y intent or that the stated reason for sus pending McMor ris was pret ext ual. See Johnson v. Gen. Bd. of Pension & Health Benefi ts of United Metho dist Churc h , 733 F.3d 722, 729 (7th Ci r. 2013). The defendants were thus entitled to sum mary judgment, and so we A F F I R

M the deci si on of the dis tr i ct court.