United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 22, 2016*

Decided February 22, 2016 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1964 

WASIU I. ALADE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, 

INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 12 C 9215 

Robert W. Gettleman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Wasiu Alade appeals the grant of summary judgment for his former employer, 

Underwriters Laboratories, in this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting that he was fired because of his 

race (black) and national origin (Nigerian). We affirm. 

The information technology department at Underwriters, a consumer-product 

safety organization, sought to hire an expert in Oracle payroll software who would be 

able to develop and maintain the company’s payroll-processing systems internationally. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 15-1964 Page 2 

After Alade was interviewed by telephone and in person, he was hired in the IT 

department because of his past experience working at Oracle and his experience 

working with systems outside North America. 

For the ten days that Alade worked for Underwriters, his supervisor noted a 

number of problems with his work. First, Alade made misguided recommendations on 

the project that he led—the implementation of new payroll software in Hong Kong and 

China. One of the employees assisting him on the project expressed concerns to the 

supervisor about Alade’s recommendation of a program that was incompatible with the 

systems in Hong Kong and China and his recommendation of tax software that is used 

only in North America. Second, Alade sent another of the employees an email outlining 

steps for completing the payroll process in Hong Kong, but the steps were in the wrong 

order and one of the steps is followed in the United States only. Third, Alade needed 

more than a week to finish two programming tasks that the supervisor estimated should 

take only four hours each to complete. Fourth, Alade broke company protocol by 

making changes to the payroll processes in China without first testing the changes 

outside the system; the changes caused several errors in calculating payroll. 

Just one week after Alade started working at Underwriters, the supervisor 

emailed the director of the IT department that he had made a “grave mistake” in 

recommending Alade’s hire. The supervisor chronicled Alade’s performance problems 

and recommended that Alade be discharged. The supervisor fired Alade three days 

later. 

Alade sued Underwriters for discrimination based on race and national origin. 

The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for Underwriters, determining 

that Alade offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude he was 

fired because of his race or national origin. The court determined that he could not 

establish a prima facie case under the indirect method of proof, see McDonnell Douglas 

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), because he “utterly” failed to show that he was 

meeting Underwriters’ legitimate job expectations, nor could he show that the reason for 

his discharge was pretextual. The court rejected any suggestion that the supervisor, who 

knew Alade was black and Nigerian when he hired him, “somehow discovered that he 

was racist in one week.” 

On appeal Alade argues that the district court improperly disregarded evidence 

that he was meeting Underwriters’ legitimate job expectations, and therefore, his poor 

performance was pretext for firing him. He asserts that his performance problems were 

fabricated because the supervisor could not remember who told him about each of the 

alleged mistakes. He maintains that he correctly performed all of the tasks required of 
No. 15-1964 Page 3 

him. Moreover, Alade says that it was his supervisor, not he, who made the changes to 

the payroll process in China resulting in errors to the payroll calculations. 

In cases such as this, where the employer says that the reason for firing an 

employee is poor job performance, the question whether an employee was meeting the 

employer’s legitimate job expectations overlaps with the question whether the 

employer’s reason for firing the employee was pretext. See Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 

772 F.3d 457, 463 (7th Cir. 2014); Collins v. Am. Red Cross, 715 F.3d 994, 1000 

(7th Cir. 2013). We therefore begin with the question of pretext, bearing in mind that if 

Alade cannot provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that 

Underwriters’ reason for firing him was pretextual, then he also cannot show that he 

was meeting Underwriters’ legitimate expectations. See Senske v. Sybase, Inc., 588 F.3d 

501, 507 (7th Cir. 2009). With the question of pretext, to defeat summary judgment, 

Alade needed to show that his supervisor did not honestly believe that he was 

performing poorly, which Alade could do by presenting some evidence that his 

performance problems had no basis in fact. See Bates v. City of Chicago, 726 F.3d 951, 

956–57 (7th Cir. 2013); Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729, 738 

(7th Cir. 2011). 

The district court’s analysis was sound. Alade did not present any evidence to 

substantiate his assertion that his performance problems were fabricated. Underwriters, 

on the other hand, pointed to Alade’s spotted performance record, including emails 

about his poor performance and deposition testimony from both his supervisor and a 

lower-level employee corroborating the problems with his work. Given Underwriters’ 

evidence and Alade’s lack of evidence, the district court was correct to conclude that 

Underwriters’ reason—Alade’s poor performance—was not pretextual. 

Alade now asserts for the first time that Michelle Moreno, an analyst in the IT 

department, was similarly situated to him, but she was not fired for being incapable of 

creating the payroll software for China. Not only is there no evidence that Moreno had 

similar responsibilities or a similar record of poor performance, but Alade waived this 

argument by failing to raise it in the district court. See James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 

707 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir. 2013); Simpson v. Office of Chief Judge of Circuit Court of Will 

Cnty., 559 F.3d 706, 719 (7th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.