## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 1647 S CO TT A NTONETT I, J ERAL D F UH RER an d C IND Y N ADIGER, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. A BBOTT L ABORATORI ES, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cv-00768

—David H . C oar, Judge . A RGUED D ECE MBE R 4, 2008

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 21, 2009

Befo re B AUER, P O SNER an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Aft e r the i r t e r mi na t i o n f r om em plo ym ent with A bbot t Labo ra tor i es, pl ai nti ff s S cot t A n to n et ti, Jer ald Fu h r er , an d C in d y N ad ige r su ed th eir f or m erem plo yer, cl ai m i ng that theywere ter m i nated on a ccount ofthei r race a nd nati onalo ri gi n. N adig er al so c l ai m ed th athe r t er m i nati o n c o ns ti tu te d unl awful r e t a l i a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o he r co mp l a i n t s o fs e x d i s c r i m-2 N o. 08
- 1647

Pl ai nt i ff s no w cl ai m thatthe br ea kf as twas a worki ng br ea k- 1 f as tbe c aus e the y us ed the t i m e t o discuss the i r s t ra t eg y f or ac c om pl i s hi ng the day’ s t as ks
. Thi s e xpl ana t i on for the br ea kf as twas ne ver p resent ed t o m ana ge m en tan d ca nno tbe c ons i de r e d n o w. i na ti o n. The di st r i ctcour t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n f a v o r o fA b b o t t, w h i c h P l a i n t i ff s a p p e a l a n d w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Pl ai nti ff s work ed as I nstr um ent Techni ci ans forA bbot t Labor ato ri es. Duri ng a typi calei ght- hour shi ft, A bbot t al l ows hourl y e m plo ye es l i ke Pl ai nti ff s t o tak e tw o ten m i nut e pai d b r ea k s, whi chmay be com bi ne d, a nd o ne th i r tym i nut e unpa i d m ea l b r ea k
. Em pl o y ee s cl o cki n a nd o uto fwor ka nd a l so m an ua l l y fi l l o uta t i m e ca r d. The tim e-k ee p in g p ro gr am th at A b b ot t u se s au to m at ica lly ded ucts thi rty m i nutes fro m the tim e an em plo yee was cl ock ed i n eac h day as an unpai d m ealbr eak
. On J une 1 0, 2 00 6, Pl aint i ff s, who a r e ea chCauc asia n, wor k ed a S atur dayo ve r ti m e sh i ft wi thM ar vin Gl o r i a, who i s F i l i pi no , a nd J ua n L un a, o fHi spa ni c des ce nt . Dur i ng thei r shi ft, the gr oup deci d ed to l eave A bbot t’ s f aci l i ti es f ora si t- dow n br eak f astatLi ttl e Nick ’ s r est aurant . 1 Altho ug h the pr ec i se t i m i ngo fthe e ve nti s di spu te d, the bre a kl a s t e d a pp r o xi mat e l y thi r t y t o f o r t y - fi v e mi nu t es. B ecause o fa techni calpro bl em , the gr oup w as not ab le to com ple te thei r proj ect that day and o nl y work ed ab o utfi ve o r s i x h o ur s i ns te ad o fthe sch edu l ed ei g ht hours.N o. 08
- 1647 3

Fuh rer adm its that he t old G ravand er that he did not t ake a 2 l un c h bre a k. An t on e t t i a nd Nad i ge r do n otr e m e m be r , bu tdo not disp ute Grav and er’ s tes ti m ony that they tol d him the y di d nott ake a l unc h br ea k. On M o nda y, Pl aint i ff s an d Gl o r i a ea cht o l d the i r g r o up l e a d e r, B r i a n G r a v a n d e r, w h o w a s i n c h a r g e o f th e i r t i me ca r ds, tha t th ey d i d no t ta k e a l unc h b r ea kdur i ngthe Saturday s hi ft. A ccor dingl y, Gravanderwrote “N L” on 2 thos e f our ti m e car ds to i nd i cate that the em p loy ee s too k no l unc h . L u n a did notwork on M onday s o he di d not tel l G ravande r tha t he t o o kno l unc h b r ea kdur i ngthe Saturday sh i ft. Grava nd eras ked the o therem plo yee s col l ecti vel y i fL u na had tak en a l unch brea k a nd o ne o f them r e po r t e d tha th e di d n o t . Gr a v a nd e r di d n o twr i te
“ NL” o n Lu na ’ s c a r d. H o we v e r, h e ma nu a l l y o v e r r o de the t i m e- kee ping p rogr am so thatal l fi ve em plo yee s w er e pai d as i ftheyhad not tak en anyunpaid br eak s. I n late July or early A ug us t 2006, Lu na ’s f orm er su p e rvi so r, Lar r y Ad ams, appr o ac he d Luna an d as k ed ifhe knew ofany i nci dents w here em plo yee s went to br eak f ast dur i nga wee k en d s hi ft. Luna t o l d A d am s tha t hi s g r o up ate an off

- si te bre akf ast on J une 10, 20 06 and al so re port ed a s i m i l aro ff

- si te m eal that Lu na part i ci pated i n w i th A nt o ne tt i
. Al th o ug h Lun a as k ed Ad ams t o k ee p the in for m ati on i n confi dence, A dam s r el aye d the J une 10 i nci dent to m or e s eni orm anage m ent. M an ag er s M i k e Pa tt er so n and RayHes s, b o thCa uca si an, subsequentl y b ega n an in vest i gat i on i nto the J une 10 o v e r t i me s hi ft . OnAugus t2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , the y me twith4 N o. 08
- 1647

P lain tiffs’ arg u m en t that L u na w a s g iv en p referen tial treat- 3 m en tbe c aus e he was fi rs tc onfro nt ed b y A d am s i ns t ea d of Patte rs on a n d H es s, as w el l as thei r argum ent thatLu na had an unf ai r advan c ed n ot i c e ofthe i nve s t i gat i on s o thatPl ai nt i ff s di d n oth a ve a n equal op po r t un i t y t o e x pl a i n wha th a pp en ed , are b oth p resen ted to this C o u rt for the first tim e in thi s li ti gati on and are ther ef ore waived
. They a re a lso unp ersuas ive. A ntonet ti, Fuhre r, N adiger, and Glo ri a ind i vi du al l y, showed ea ch i nd i vi du alhi s o r her ti m e car d fr om J une 10 bear i ng the “N L ” n otati on, and ask ed abo ut the eve nts o f that day. W hen ask ed i fthe grou p w en t o ff

- si te that day and w here t h ey w ent t o bre akf ast, A ntonet tico uld not re m em b er w h er e t h ey h ad g o n e t o b re ak fas t a n d sa id th at s om et im es t h ey w ou ld go t o M c D on ald ’s. Fu h re r d id no t r ememberg o i ngo ff

- si te f o r b r ea k f as t d uring the J une 10 shi ft. N ad ige r did notr em em berwh etherthey ha d taken a break th at d ay. G lori a d id n ot recall w he re th e te ch ni ci an s went orho w l o ngthe y wer e g o ne dur i ng thei r bre ak on J une 10. Tha t sa m e day, H es s i nt er vi ewe d Luna b y pho ne b ec au se L u n a w as on an as sig n m en t in M ex ico . L u n a t old H ess thatthe gr oup w ent o ut f orbr eak f asta n d thatthey wer e g o ne thi r tyt o f o r ty
- fi ve min ut es . Al th o ugh Luna c ou ld n otrem em b er th e n am e o f th e r e s t au ra n t, h e t old He s s wh e r e the r e s t a ur a ntwa s l o c a t e d. 3 Pl aint i ff s an d Gl o r i a co nfer r ed a fte r the i r i nt er vi ews a nd re m em ber ed t he br eak f astatLi ttl e Nick ’ s. Patt er son m et wi thAnto ne tt i a s ec o nd t i m e that sam e daya ndN o. 08
- 1647 5 A n to n et ti t old P at te rs on ab ou t t h e in c id en t, su p p os ed ly o n b e h a l fo fa l l th r e e P l a i n t i ff s . Ath i s d e p o si ti o n, Anto ne tt i c o nfi r m ed Pa tt er so n’ s su m m ar y no te s o fthe in vesti gat i on byadm i tting tha t he m ay have told Patte rs on som ethi ng l i ke, “I ’ m ta ki ng a ri sk by tel l i ng y ou the t ruth o r c h an gin g m y s tor y, ” though he l ate r denie d m em or y o fsuch a st ate m ent. P at te rs on fou n d it im p lau sib le t h at th e t ec h n ic ian s d id no t r emembergoin g o ff

- si te f o r b r ea k f as t dur i ngthe S atur dayo ve r ti m e sh i ft, s i nc e i t was unusu alto w o r kon a Satu rd ay, an d u n us ua l to leave A bbo tt’s prem ises f or a m ea l i n the m iddl e o fa s hi ft. Pa tt er so n a l so f o und the te c h n icia n s’ in ab ility to rem em b er th e b re ak im p lau sib le because duri ng the in te rv i ew s they di d rec al l o ther detai l s about the s hi ft. Pl aint i ffs an d Gl o r i a wer e subseq ue nt ly term inated ; Luna w as not. Patt er son m ade thes e deci si ons i n consult atio n w i th o ther s in m anage m ent.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, Pl ai nti ff s claim that the dist ri ct c ourter re d b y g ra n tin g su m m ar y j u d gm en t for A b b ot t o n th e d isc rim ina ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n a ct i o ns . Abbo tta r g ue s th atthe dist ri ct c ourtact ed proper l y b ecause Pl ai nti ff s co uld not es ta b lish a p rim a fa c i e ca se of ra c e o r n at ion al or igin d i s c r i mi n a t i o n, a n d h a d n o e v i d e n c e o fr e t a l i a t i o n . We r e v i e w a di str i c tc o ur t ’ s g r a nto fs ummar y j ud g men tde n ov o. D ars tv. Int e rs t at eBr ands Corp. , 51 2 F
. 3d 903, 90 7 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)
. S um m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate wh en6 N o. 08
- 1647

Plai nti ff s brou ght thi s a ct ion und er Tit le V II as w el l as 42 4 U
. S. C . § 1981. H ow ever, because both authorit ie s requir e a p lain tiff to p ro v e the sam e elem en ts to m ak e ou t a p rim a facie ca se , th e c la im s ri se o r fa ll t o g et h er . Lal vaniv. C ookC oun ty, Ill. , 26 9 F .3d 78 5 , 78 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ). th er e i s no g en ui ne i ss ue a s to a ny mate r i alf ac t an d the mo v i n gp a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. F ed. R. Ci v. P
. 5 6( c)
. “ W e vi ew the r ec o r d i n the l i g ht m os t f a v or ab le t o th e n on -m ov in g p ar ty an d d ra w all re aso nabl e infe re nces i n that party ’ s f avo r. ” D a rst, 51 2 F.3d at 907( citation om itted ).
A . R ace and N at i onal O r i gi n D i scr i m i nati on Tit l e VI Iof the Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64 f orbi ds an em plo yer“to d i scr i m i nate aga i nst a ny i nd i vi du alwith re s p ec t t o h is c om p en sa tio n, ter m s, co n d itio n s, or p riv il ege s of e m plo ym ent, bec ause ofsuch ind i vi du al ’ s r ace, col or, r el i gi on, se x, o r n at ion alo ri gi n. ” 4 2 U.S
. C. § 2 000e
2( a) ( 1)
. A plai nti ffm ay prove i l l ega l di scr i m i nati on

4 ei therdi re c tly o r i nd i re ctl y. I n thi s ca se, Pl ai nti ff s r el y o n the in d ire ct b urden-s hi fti ng m etho d ofpro ofexpl ai ned i n M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 4 11 U
. S. 792 (1973). Un d e r th i s a p p r o a c h, P l a i n t i ff s mu s tfi r s te s t a b l i sh a pr i m a f aci e ca se ofdi scr i m i nati on bypro vi ng tha t: “( 1) [ they ar e] m em ber [ s] o fa prot ecte d cl ass ; ( 2) [ they w ere] per f or m i ng [ thei r] j ob[ s] sa ti sf acto ri l y; ( 3) [ they] su ffer ed an ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n ; an d (4) sim ilar ly situat ed em p loyees outs ide of [their] p rotecte d class w ere tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y. ” Goodwin v. Bd. of Tr us t e e s of the U niv. of Ill
. , 442 F.3d 611 , 617 (7th C ir. 2006).N o. 08
- 1647 7 I fPl aint i ff s ca n de m o ns trate the se f o ure l ement s, the b u rd en “s h ift[s ] t o t h e e m p loy er to art icu lat e s om e le git ima t e , n o n d i s c r i mi n a t o r y r e a s o n f o r th e ” a d v e r s e e mp loy m en t a c tio n . M cDonne l l D ougl as Corp. , 41 1 U.S
. at 802
. I f A bbo tt satisfi es th is burd en of p rod uc tion, P la in t iffs “m ust then es tablish t h at ther e i s a n i ssue ofm ate ri al f ac t as t o whethe r the e m pl o y er ’ s proff er ed r ea so ns ar e m er el y pr ete xt f orunl aw fu l di scr i m i nati on o r re tal i ati on, i n or der t o survi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent. ” H uds on v. C hicago Tran si t A uthority, 375 F.3d 552 , 561 (7th C ir. 2004 ) ( ci ti ng M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp . , 411 U
. S. at 804). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t o n th is cl ai m bec ause Pl ai nti ff s co uld notsa tisfythe f ourth el em ent o ft h ei r pri m a f aci e ca se

— id en tify in g a sim ilar ly si t u a t e d e mpl o y e e o u t s i d e o fth e i r p r o t e c t e d c l a s s wh o w as tre at ed m or e fa v o r a b ly th an th ey . Pla in tiffs cla im that Lu na qua lifi ed as a s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee because he work ed the sam e j ob, in the sa m e depart

m en t, a nd un derthe s ame s upe r vi so r s as Pl ai nt if fs , a nd because h e w or ked the sam e J une 10 ove rt i m e s hi ft, to ok th e s am e b re ak, d i d n otrep or t t h e b re ak, an d w as p aid f orthe enti re shi ft. A bbot t a rgue s th at L una w as not si m i lar l y s i tuate d to Pl ai nti ff s in the tw o ar eas that p ro m p te d P lain tiffs ’ te rm i n a t i on s: (1) h e d id n otte ll Gravander that he to ok no l unch brea k duri ng the J une 10 ove rt i m e s hi ft; and ( 2) he a dm itted to the b re akf ast w hen questi oned by A dam s. W he n “a p lai nt iff claim s th at he w as d iscipli ne d
. . . m ore h a r s h l y th a n a s i mi l a r l y s i t u a t e d e mp l o y e e b a s e d o n s o me p ro hibi ted r eas on

— a p l a i nt i ffmus t[ ty pi c a l l y ] s how8 N o. 08
- 1647 that
. . . the tw o em plo yee s . . . enga ged i n si m i l arco nd uct w i thout such differ enti ati ng o r m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces as w ou ld d isti ng uish their cond uc t or the em p loyer’ s tr eat m ent o fthem
. ” Raduev. Ki m b e r l y- Clark Corp. , 219 F
. 3d 612, 6 17- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. The si m i l arco nd uct t o be exam i n ed m u st be m ate ri alto the cause ofthe disc i pline. Seeid . a t 617 ( “I n deter m i ni ng wh ethertwo em plo yee s ar e s im ilar ly sit u at ed a c ou rtm u st look atall rel e vant factors .
. . . ” (em p ha sis add ed ))
. I n thi s c a s e , P l a i nt i ff s we r e fi r e d fo r t i me c a r d fr a ud : say i ng tha t they t oo k no br eakwh en the y di d and then suspi ci ousl y f ai l i n g to rem em berthe off

- si te m ealwh en confro nted. Luna did not engag e in ei thero fthes e m at er i ala ct i o ns . Pa tt er so n’ s su m m ar y no te s o fthe i nv e s t i g a t i o n ma k e th i s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n th e e mp loyees abu nd an tly cl ear: Ba sic is sue i s the 4 techs docum ented “no l unch” on th eir tim e card s althou gh they did go off site for a m ea l.
. . . I n a ddi ti o n, whenque st i o ne d b y R ay H es s, 4 /5 te ch s ei therl i ed abo ut o r did notr ecal l go i ng o ffsi te f or the b re akf ast . O n e techni ci an, S cot t An tone tti ch an g ed hi s st o r y l at eri n the da y a nd a dm i tt ed th e truth. One techni ci an, J u an L una cam e for w ar d du ring a disc ussi on with Larr y Ad am s t o bring the si tuati on to l i ght in the fi rs t pl ace. J uan al so did notr equest a “n o lu n c h ” o n h is t im ec ar d bu t w as a p p ar en tly p aid for the enti re durati on r ega rdl ess . . . . J uan al so w as the onl y techni ci an i nter vi ew ed w ho tol d the truth d u rin g t h e in itia l d isc u ss ion
.N o. 08
- 1647 9

P lain tiffs arg u e tha t the rele v an t con d u ct to b e com p are d in 5 thi s cas e i s taki ng and not r eporti ng the br eak

— no t affirm ativ ely lyi ng ab out itto G ravand er, or l ying or f ail ing t o rem em ber i twhenque s t i one d by m anage m en t . Pa t t er s on’ s i nve s t i gat i on notes do no t s up port this the ory, but, even i fPla in tiffs are c or re c t, Luna was no ts i m i l ar l y s i t uat ed be c aus e he di d not t el l Gra vande r thathe t ook no l unc h, an d h e w as hones tabo ut the in ci dent w hen quest ioned

— m it igat ing ci rcum st ances th a td i ffe r e n t i a t e h i s c o n d u c ta n d Ab b o t t ’ s t r e a t me n to fh i m. Radu e, 219 F. 3d at 617- 18. In o ther w ords, w hetherthe f actthat L u na d id no t pe rson ally li e to G rav an d er an d told the tru th when c onfro nt ed by Adam s ar e the r el eva nt factors t o c ons i der i n the fi rs tpl ac e, or m i t i gat i ng f ac t or s disting u i s hi ng th e d e g r e e o fL u n a ’ s mi s c o n d u c tfr o m th a to fth e o th e r e mployees w h o took the break and did not report it, Lu na w as no t sim ilarly situate d to P lain tiffs. M an y of P l a i n t iff s’ arg u m en ts ad d ress the issu e of p retext; 6 because Pl aint iff s cannot survive the fir ststep in the M c D o n n ell D ougl as an a ly sis , w e d o n o t n ee d to co n sid er th e t h ir d
. S ee P ee le v. C ountry M ut. Ins. C o. , 288 F. 3d 319, 331 (7th Cir. 2002) ( und er indire ctm ethod, f ail ure t o of fer c om parab le em p loyee d o o m s T itl e V II cla im ). Th e r e f o r e , Lu na wa s n o ts i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d. 5 W i thout a si m i l ar l y si tuate d em plo yee , P l ai nti ff s ca nnot p re se n t a p rim a fa c ie c as e a n d th eir cla im m u st fail. 610 N o. 08
- 1647 B. R et al i at i on N adig eral so cl ai m ed that she was te rm i nated i n re t a l i a t i o n f o r h e r p a s ta n d i mmin e n t l y a p p r o a c h i n gc o mpla i nts o fse x dis cri m i n at ion in r el ati on t o bei ng deni ed a p r o mo t i o n i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6
. T i t l e V I Ip r o t e c t s e mplo yee s “ f ro m re tal i ati on f orco m pla i ni ng ab out the types ofdi scr im in at ion i t pr ohibi ts. ” M il le r v. A m . Fam ily M ut. Ins. Co. , 2 0 3 F
. 3 d 9 9 7, 1 0 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ; 4 2 U
. S
. C. § 2000 e-3(a). Like oth er discr im in a tion claim s, a p lai nt iff m ay prove r eta l i ati on thro ugh the dir ect or i nd i re ct metho d. I n thi s c a s e , Na di g e r r e l i e s o n the di r e c tme tho d. To sur vi ve s um m ar y j udg ement, Nadi g ermustpr es en t suffi ci ent di re ct o r circum sta nti alev i dence f orthe tr i er offa c tt o i nfe r tha tthe r e wa s a “ c a us a l l i nk ” b etween her com pla i nts o fse x disc rim inati on a nd herte rm i natio n . Cul ve rv. Gor m an & Co. , 4 16 F.3d 540, 54 5-46 (7th C ir. 20 05 ); Sylves te r v. SO S Ch il dre n’s Vill s. Ill
. , Inc. , 45 3 F
. 3d 900, 902 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( dir ect m etho d requires plainti ffto prove “that he engag ed i n p ro tect ed acti vi ty ( fi l i ng a ch ar g e o f di sc r i m i na ti o n) an d as a r es ul t su ffered the advers e em p loy m ent a cti on” ( quoti ng St onev. Ci ty of In d i a n a p o l i s Pu b l i cUt i l i t i e s Di v. , 281 F. 3d 640, 64 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 02) ) )
. I fshe coul d produce thi s infe re n c e, but her ev id en ce i s co ntra dict ed, wh i ch i t i s, then “the case m ust b e t r i e d u nl e s s [ Abb o t t ] p r e s e nt s u nr e b ut t e d e v i de nce th at[ i t] woul d ha ve t ak enthe a dve r se em p loy m en t action against [N ad iger] even i f [i t] had no retaliatory m otive; in tha t ev en t [A bbo tt] i s ent itl ed to sum m ary j ud gm en t beca us e [i t] has sh ow n th at [N ad iger] w asn ’t harm ed by re tal i ati on. ” St one, 28 1 F
. 3d at 644.N o. 08
- 1647 11 I n thi s ca se, ev en i fA bbot t was part i al l y m oti vate d by N ad ige r’s co m p lain ts in it s t er m in at ion d ec isio n, i t w ou ld have fi re d N adig erwitho ut such m oti va tio n. A bbot t term inated A nt one tti, Fuh rer, and G lori a for tim e card f ra ud and N adig erm ake s no at tem p t to , no r can she , dist i ngui sh her sel ffro m tho se em plo yee s, o therthan st at i ngtha t unknow n f ac to r s be si des t i m e ca r d fr au d coul d have par ti al l y m oti vate d the deci si on t o ter m i nate thos e e m plo yee s. N adig erdoes notdeny herpart i ci pati o n in the J une 1 0 br ea k f as t o r r epo r tingthat s he to o kno l unch. N ei therdoes N ad i gerdi spute thatPatt er son f ound her l ack ofm em or y i m pla usibl e w h en questi oned about the inci dent. There f or e, A bbot t had a l egi ti m ate an d i nd ep en d en t j us tification f or term inating N ad iger, w ou ld h ave term inated her even w ithou t any retaliatory m ot ive , an d is en tit led to su m m ar y jud gm en t. Id.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re as on s di scusse d above , we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

4- 21- 09