United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 20, 2007∗

Decided January 25, 2008

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

No. 07-2676

CECIL W. WATSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 03 C 4023

David H. Coar, Judge.

Order

On September 3, 2002, following our remand on a prior appeal, see Watson v.

Henderson, 222 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2000), the district court entered a judgment

requiring the Postal Service to “plac[e] Watson in an EAS 21 position with

commensurate pay.”

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating

Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.

32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 07-2676 Page 2

Contending that the Postal Service had not complied with the district court’s

order, Watson filed a new suit describing the noncompliance as a form of

“retaliation” for filing the suit in the first place, and thus as a fresh violation of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is not an appropriate way to proceed, for

the reasons given in McGuire v. Springfield, 280 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2002). If an

employer fails to provide the relief called for by a judgment, the appropriate step is

a motion to enforce that judgment (if necessary, by contempt proceedings) rather

than a new Title VII suit describing noncompliance with the judgment as a fresh

form of discrimination.

But that is water under the bridge. Plaintiff did not move to enforce the

judgment. The new suit was at least transferred to the same district judge who had

entered the judgment in 2002. In 2006 that judge held a bench trial, concluded that

the Postal Service has complied with the judgment, and held that no further relief is

in order. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36061 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2007). The judge also held

that references to the original litigation in plaintiff’s employment file do not imply

retaliation or new discrimination; it is scarcely possible for an employer to meet

obligations established by a judicial decree without noting (for the use of those who 

make personnel assignments) that the employee has filed and won a suit and holds

a judgment governing his permissible assignment and pay. (Although the district

judge expressed considerable sympathy for plaintiff’s concerns about the manner in

which the Postal Service recorded the judgment, he found that plaintiff did not

suffer prejudice as a result.)

The district court’s findings must be respected unless clearly erroneous. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Watson’s brief in this court, however, does not mention Rule 

52(a); much of the brief reads as if it were a presentation to the trier of fact as an

original matter. It does not attempt to demonstrate why any particular finding is

clearly erroneous. Instead plaintiff recites lengthy complaints about the manner in

which the Postal Service met its obligations, asserting that the Postal Service 

departed from its regular assignment practices. But, as the district court remarked,

“many of the inconsistencies can and should be viewed as little more than the 

bending of rules to accommodate the atypical placement of an employee through

court order rather than the normal mechanisms of Postal Service employment

practices. ... [Moreover] and most importantly, [the Postal Service’s] actions do not

appear to have had a real impact on Plaintiff’s ability to meet the demands and reap

the benefits of his position”.

The main “action” that Watson contests is his assignment to a position

(Manager of Customer Services at the post office in Hoffman Estates, Illinois) that

someone else nominally held; that put him at risk of ouster should the existing

holder come back to work. The district court found that the nominal holder was

expected never to return to work, and did not in fact return, so that Watson’s fear of

being kicked out of the position was unreasonable. That finding is not clearly

erroneous.

The only implied challenge to the district court’s approach concerns its

conclusion that the Postal Service believed that Watson’s posting must be in the

Northern District of Illinois. Watson maintains that he could and should have been
No. 07-2676 Page 3

given a better position elsewhere, and would have accepted it. On this subject,

however, Watson’s decision to commence a new Title VII suit--rather than move for

enforcement of the 2002 judgment--cuts against him. A managerial decision that

rests on a mistaken reading of a judgment (if that is what this reading represents)

is not based on race; managerial errors differ from discrimination.

There is no basis to upset the judgment, which is

AFFIRMED.