United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 18, 2022*

Decided February 23, 2022 

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 21-2631 

MONODIP CHAUDHURI,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 18-cv-0508-bhl

Brett H. Ludwig, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

While working for IBM India in the United States, Monodip Chaudhuri was 

diagnosed with a degenerative spinal disease and received short-term disability benefits

through his employer. Chaudhuri returned to India before qualifying for long-term 

disability benefits, then sued IBM USA for interfering with his benefits in violation of 

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs 

and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would 

not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1
No. 21-2631 Page 2 

§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. The district 

court entered summary judgment for the defendant. We affirm.

We recount the record in the light “reasonably most favorable” to Chaudhuri, the 

party opposing the entry of summary judgment. See Stark v. Johnson & Johnson, 10 F.4th 

823, 825 (7th Cir. 2021). Chaudhuri is an Indian citizen and an employee of IBM India. 

Between 2009 and 2017, he worked on several assignments in the United States. In June 

2017, two months into a three-year assignment with an American company in 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chaudhuri was diagnosed with a degenerative spinal disease. 

He took a leave of absence and received short-term disability benefits through 

IBM India’s self-funded sickness and accident plan for traveling employees. He also 

hoped to obtain long-term benefits through a plan that IBM India had purchased for 

employees working in the United States for more than six months per year. Under the 

policy, benefits accrued for workers present in the United States after a nine-month

disability period. Chaudhuri’s H-1B visa expired in the fall of 2017, and although IBM 

India sponsored his application to renew it, the United States Department of State

denied renewal because his work was not sufficiently specialized. Chaudhuri returned 

to India in October 2017, before the end of his projected three-year assignment, and he 

continues to work for IBM India.

Believing that he was wrongly prevented from accessing long-term disability 

benefits, Chaudhuri sued IBM USA. He alleged that IBM USA employed him while he 

was stationed in the United States and that the company pressured him to return to 

India and ended his assignment to prevent him from renewing his visa and using the

long-term disability policy, in violation of § 510 of the Act. After Chaudhuri amended 

his complaint as of right, FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(B), discovery proceeded for a year, but 

Chaudhuri—who had counsel at the time—made no discovery requests. 

IBM USA eventually moved for summary judgment. Chaudhuri litigated the 

motion pro se after his attorney withdrew, and the district court orally granted the 

motion. The court explained that Chaudhuri’s claim failed as a matter of law because 

IBM USA was not his employer and was a separate entity from IBM India, which 

sponsored the long-term disability plan. The court added that the record contained no 

evidence that IBM USA was involved with Chaudhuri’s benefits or work visa. 

Chaudhuri appeals, but instead of developing arguments that IBM USA was not 

entitled to summary judgment, he mainly provides excerpts of his correspondence with 

IBM India’s human-resources department about his quest for benefits. He declined to 
No. 21-2631 Page 3 

order the transcript of the district court’s oral ruling, failed to append the judgment, 

and cites no legal authority in his brief. FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(1), 28(a)(8)(A). We could 

dismiss the appeal on these grounds, but because IBM USA supplemented the record

with the transcript and judgment, and Chaudhuri’s contentions are evident, we can 

consider the merits of Chaudhuri’s appeal. See United States v. De Horta Garcia, 519 F.3d 

658, 660 (7th Cir. 2008). 

Section 510 of the Act makes it unlawful for “any person to ... discriminate against 

a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the 

provisions of an employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1140. In his submissions, Chaudhuri 

did not point to a factual dispute that IBM USA interfered with his employee benefits in 

either way the law recognizes: (1) by taking action against him as his employer, see Dewitt 

v. Proctor Hosp., 517 F.3d 944, 949 (7th Cir. 2008), or (2) by preventing him from accessing, 

or failing to pay, long-term disability benefits to which he was entitled. Nauman v. Abbott 

Labs., 669 F.3d 854, 857 (7th Cir. 2012). 

First, IBM USA never employed Chaudhuri so it could not have taken any 

adverse employment action against him for trying to obtain benefits. The undisputed 

evidence shows that IBM India and IBM USA are separate entities: IBM USA is 

incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and IBM India is 

incorporated and headquartered in India. As a foreign corporation, IBM India has a 

“separate legal existence” from IBM USA. Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 

775 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2015). IBM India operates independently, with separate 

payroll and human-resources departments, branch offices, and a unique domain name 

for its employee email addresses. The courts have not been presented here with any 

competent and admissible evidence, as the law requires, that Chaudhuri was ever 

transferred to or jointly employed by IBM USA when he was worked in the 

United States. Indeed, Chaudhuri’s own submissions, including his pay stub, tax 

documents, and his 2017 work-assignment notice—which state, “you are an employee 

of IBM India”—confirm that he was employed by only IBM India. Therefore, as the 

district court concluded, Chaudhuri cannot establish that IBM USA “had any role” in 

his employment, benefits, or visa. And the assignment notice shows that IBM USA also 

did not control the Milwaukee assignment. Because Chaudhuri never had an 

“employment relationship” with IBM USA, he cannot show that it adversely changed 

his employment terms to punish his use, or potential use, of benefits. Teamsters Loc. 

Union No. 705 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, LLC, 741 F.3d 819, 826–27 (7th Cir. 2014). 
No. 21-2631 Page 4 

Second, notwithstanding pleading interference with his benefits, Chaudhuri also 

provided no evidence that IBM USA did anything to hinder him from accessing his

benefits through IBM India. Liability under § 510 “is not limited to employers,” 

Teamsters, 741 F.3d at 821; it is unlawful for “any person to discharge, fine, suspend, 

expel, discipline, or discriminate” against participants of employer-sponsored plans, 

like Chaudhuri. 29 U.S.C. § 1140. Chaudhuri alleges that a manager and two colleagues

in Milwaukee pressured him to return to India before he became eligible for long-term 

disability benefits. But he admitted in his deposition that all three were IBM India 

employees, and that he returned to India based on the advice of two doctors. Although 

Chaudhuri speculates that the doctors gave the recommendation at his employer’s 

behest, it was Chaudhuri who permitted his doctors to discuss his condition with his 

IBM India manager. No evidence shows that he, his doctor, or anyone from IBM India 

ever contacted IBM USA about his health or any attempt to obtain benefits. He thus 

cannot show that but for IBM USA’s interference, he would have received benefits 

under IBM India’s plan. Id. at 826.

Because IBM USA was not the proper defendant for his claims, Chaudhuri’s 

cross-motions for summary judgment also lacked merit, making his appellate challenge 

to their denial based on violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local 

rules immaterial. Even so, there was no abuse of discretion in enforcing the rules. 

See Igasaki v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof’l Reg., 988 F.3d 948, 956 (7th Cir. 2021). As was 

explained at the summary judgment hearing, Chaudhuri’s cross-motions were untimely

and filed without leave. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(b). They also did not include the proposed 

statement of undisputed facts required by local rules. See E.D. WIS. CIV. L. R. 56(b)(1)(B). 

AFFIRMED