a

that are designed to harass and humiliate employees.” Id. Even in
combination with the written warning she received, this
investigation is not an adverse employment action. As Ms.
Balderrama fails to present a prima facie claim of retaliation, I

grant Kraft’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

ENTER, ORDER :
Core Z Buhl

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: March g , 2004



alteration in [her] workplace environment.” Volovsek v. Wisconsin
Dept. of Agriculture, 344 F.3d 6809, 688 n.5 (7 Cir. 2003).

Ms. Balderrama argues that even if the warning alone is not
sufficient to constitute such an action - which ib is not ~ the
investigation that led up to the warning is. Ms. Balderrama did
not include the investigation in her EBOC charge or in her
complaint. This omission would normally prevent her from bringing
this claim. Sitar v. Indiana Dept. of Transportation, 344 F.3d
720, 726 (7 Cir. 2003). However, the investigation is so closely
linked to the written warning Ms. Balderrama received that a claim
about the investigation could be “reasonably expected to grow out
of an EEOC investigation of the charges” she did include. Id.

The investigation Ms. Balderrama refers to is the
investigation undertaken by Kraft after her complaint of sexual
harassment. When that investigation led to accusation from co-
workers that Ms. Balderrama had engaged in sexually harassing
behavior, Kraft was bound to investigate those claims as well
“Regular and legitimate” employer conduct, even if the employee is
embarassed as a result, is not actionable under Title VII.
Stockett v. Muncie Ind. Transit Sys., 221 F.3d 997, 1001 (7% Cie.
2000). Kraft investigated the claims against Ms. Balderrama, just
as it had investigated the claims made by Ms. Balderrama. Such
investigations, evenly administered no matter who has made the

complaint, do not rise to the level of “conditions of employment


Ee _

“Minnte Grd Marsa (06/9)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 8799 | DATE 3/9/2004

CASE Balderrama vs, Kraft Foods

TITLE

[Jn the following box (u) indicate the purty filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plainti{€, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
Q im] Filed motion of [ ase listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Q Answer brief to motion due ____. Reply to answer briefdue_____.
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) ica} Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on set for, at
(6) ag Pretrial conference(held/continued to] {set for/re-set forfon ss set for at
(7) o ‘Triallset for/re-set for}on a.
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Heating} held/continued to sat.
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) CO Local Rule 41.1 COPRCP4I(a1) Cl FRCP4I1(ax(2),
ao) {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of retaliation.

(i) @ [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in opon court, Document

> Number

No notices required.
umbes of wrices

MAR 19 2004

| Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to muil notices,

Mail AQ 450 form,

‘dyeketing domuty initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom A
ory deputy’s wo
inivials

Datestime received in ~
centra) Clerk’s Office

ring deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION DOCKETEI

MAR 1 0 2004
MARIA BALDERRAMA,

Plaintiff,
No. 02 C 8799

Ve

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
and NABISCO INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Maria Balderrama was initially employed by defendant
Kraft Foods North America, Inc. (“Kraft”) in April 1991 as a mixer.
Ms. Balderrama, also known as Maria Boyd, alleges that from 2000
until 2002, she was subjected to persistent sexual harassment from
her co-workers, Ms. Balderrama further alleges that she reported
the sexual harassment to Kraft’s Human Resources department in
February and March 2002, but that nothing was done. Ms. Balderrama
filed a charge of sex discrimination and retaliation with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on April 17, 2002. Ms.
Balderrama alleges Kraft gave her a written warning in retaliation
for filing her EEOC charge. Kratt moves for partial summary
judgment on Ms. Balderrama’s claim of retaliation. The motion is
granted.

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record and

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material

\ol



fact and that the moving party is entitled te judgment as a matter
of law. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, 165 F.3d 1087, 1090
(7 Cir, 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Ms. Balderrama presents no direct evidence of retaliation.
She must, therefore, establish a prima facie case of retaliation
using a framework based on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S, 792 (1973). She must show that (1) she complained of
discrimination; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment
action; and (3) similarly-situated employees were not subjected to
the adverse employment action. Stone v. City of Indianapolis
Public Utilities Div., 281 F.3d 640, 642 (7° Cir. 2002). Lf she
does so, Kraft can present evidence of a non-discriminatory reason
for the action. Id,

Kraft does not dispute that Ms. Balderrama complained of
discrimination, but argues that she cannot establish that she was
subjected to an adverse employment action. Ms. Balderrama claims
that the written warning she was given constitutes such an action.
The standard for adverse employment actions in a retaliation

setting is less demanding than the standard in a discrimination

case. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901-02 (7°
Cir. 2003). However, the law is clear that a warning or

performance evaluation does not amount to an adverse employment.

action. Id, at 902. The action must be a “significantly negative