# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 29 , 2015 * Decided November 2 , 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD , Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER , Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 15

- 1303

MICHELLE WELCHER

- BUTLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v
. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

.
No. 13 C 2996 Charles R. Norgle, Judge

.
O R D E R

Michelle Welcher

- Butler contends that the United States Postal Service fired her in retaliat ion for contest ing earlier discipline. The district court granted the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Welcher

- Butler had furnished no evidence of retaliation. Because its analysis is correct, w e affirm

.

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the brief s and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2) (C)

. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 15

- 1303 Page 2 We begin with a procedural point. In opposing summary judgment, Welcher

- Butler did not properly respond to the Postal Service’s statement of material facts or file her own statement of additional facts, as required by the district court’s local rules. See N.D. I LL

. L.R. 56.1 (b)(3); Flint v. City of Belvidere , 791 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2015). Because of her noncompliance, the district court adopted the Postal Service’s statement

. T he district cour t has discretion to demand strict compliance with its local rule s , so we uphold its decision, s ee Patterson v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc. , 589 F.3d 357, 360 (7th Cir. 2009 ) , because e ven pro se litigants must follow the se rules , s ee McNeil v. United States , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). W ith that in mind, we recount the evidence, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Welcher

- Butler

. See Andrews v. CBOCS West, Inc. , 743 F.3d 230, 232 (7th Cir. 2014).

Welcher

- Butler ’s tro ubles with the Postal Service began in 2008. At that time s he
was a customer

- service representative in Oak Forest , and she began receiv ing “ letters of warning

. ” The letters identified in cidents of on

- the

- job misconduct : failing to report a workplace accident, improperly entering over time hou rs for another employee, and losing cash and postage through poor recordkeeping. In response, Welcher

- Butler charged that the letters reflected discrimination. Her charges were dismissed in August 2010 after she re ached an administrative settlement with the Postal Service

. The settlement awarded her 40 hours of sick leave. The next month Welcher

- Butler received another letter of warning . This one , for delaying the delivery of mail , was issued by Demet ria Charrier, t he new Oak Fo r est Postmaster

. Workplace problems for Welcher

- Butler peaked three months later . D uring the busy holiday season , in December 2010 , she delayed mail delivery three more times

. First, o n December 15 she refused to accept an after

- hours delivery of mail from a shipping company , violating the o ffice’s practice of accepting late deliveries. F ive days later she failed to get late

- arriving mail out to carriers on their routes, contrary to Charrier’s instructions. T he next day she delayed by o ne day the delivery of hundreds of periodicals. Beyond these infractions, s he also failed to report properly her del ays

.
Welcher

- Butler’s discharge soon followed

. In late December, Charrier me t with Welcher

- Butler to ask about her recent misconduct

. She initially rebuffed Charrier’ s questions , but when Charrier p r oposed to fir e her based on December’s infractions , Welcher

- Butler tried to defend herself, saying that she had properly reported her delays

. Charrier’s boss, Patrick Kavanaugh , was unpersuaded a nd approved the discharge

.No. 15

- 1303 Page 3

Welcher

- Butler initially challenge d her discharge on several grounds . Because she
was a federal employee and argued that the Postal Service violated some civil

- service protections, she sought relief before the Merit Systems Pr otection Board

. Welcher

- Butler v. USPS , No. CH

- 0752

- 11

- 0477

- I

- 1, 2011 WL 6393495 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 18, 2011), modified , 2012 WL 11881278 (Apr. 6, 2012) . She also argued to the EEOC that she had been fired because of age discrimination and retaliation for “3 other EEO cases” (she does not specify the nature of those charges)

. Welcher

- Butler v. Donahoe , EEOC Decision No. 0320120045, 2013 WL 1702495 (Apr. 11, 2013) . In the district court, she contested her discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging color, race, and national

- origin discrimination, as well as retaliation. T he district court dismissed as unexhausted all her discrimination claims ( a ruling that she does not contest on appeal) . It allowed her retal iation claim to proceed

.
The Postal Service moved for summary judgment , arguing that Welcher

- Butler furnished no evidence of retaliation for her prior charges

. In approving her discharge , the Postal Service stated, Kavanaugh kn ew nothing about her prior discrimination
c harges

. I t conceded , though, that Charrier did : After bec oming local postmaster , she add ed the 40 hours of sick leave to Welcher

- Butler’s leave balance , as required by the administrative settlement , which alerted her to the earlier charges

. But her mere knowledge, the Postal S ervice argued, was insufficient under the direct method of proof to create a rational infere nce that , four months after the settlement, Charrier retaliat ed by proposing to fire her

. Summary judgment was proper under the indirect method of proof as well, the Postal Service continued , because Welcher

- Butler had no evidence that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations or that a similarly situated employee was treated more favorably. The district court agreed and gran ted the motion. On appeal Welcher

- Butler continues to contest her discharge , but her principal argument is unavailing . She devotes most of her briefs to contending that her firing was “procedurally incorrect” under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95

- 454, 92 Stat. 1111

. Relying on exhibits outside of the record on appeal, she argues that the Postal Service violated those rules when it ( 1) consider ed letters of warning that she says were too old, had been rescinded, or were improperly ser ved on her; (2) fail ed to consider commendations that she received earlier in her career; and (3) discount ed her potential for rehabilitation. D istrict court s may consider claims of civil

- service act violations when raised along with claims of discriminati on. See Kloeckner v. Solis , 133 S.Ct. 596, 607 n.4 (2012)

. But Welcher

- Butler did not present to the district court any evidence of the violation s of the Act or even mention the Act. Consequently the se contentions a re forfeited

. See S.E.C. v. Yang , 795 F.3d 674, 678

– 79 (7th Cir. 2015)

.No. 15

- 1303 Page 4 The district court properly rejected Welcher

- Butler ’s preserved claim

— retaliation

. To survive summary judgment under the direct method, she had to furnish evidence that her earlier discrimination charges prompted Charrier or Kavanaugh to fire her

. S ee Castro v. DeVry Univ. , Inc ., 786 F.3d 559, 564 (7th Cir. 2015) . But she did not. T he record suggests only that Charrier implemented the August settlement in her capacity as the new local postmaster and then, in December , she proposed firing Welcher

- Butler for repeated ly delay ing mail delivery . We have consistently held , though, that retaliation
can not be reasonably inferred solely from adverse action that comes months after learning about protected activity

. See Hnin v. TOA (U SA), LLC. , 751 F.3d 499, 508 (7th Cir. 2014); Argyropoulos v. City of Alton , 539 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2008). Welcher

- Butler supplies no evidence that her timeline is any different

.
Welcher

- Butler fares no better under the indirect method . That method requires evidence suggesting that she met her employer’s legitimate job expectations and that her employer treated similarly si tuated employees who did not file EEO complaints more favorably

. S ee Harden v. Marion C ou nty Sheriff’s Dep ’ t , 799 F.3d 857, 862 (7th Cir. 2015). The undisputed record shows that Welcher

- Butler’s repeated failure to obey her employer’s policies and her supervisor’s orders resulted in several unsatisfactory delays of the mail during a busy period for the Postal Service . Moreover she presented no competent evidence of comparators. Both failings are fatal to her reliance on the indirect method

. See Sklyarsky v. Means

- Knaus Partners , L.P ., 77 7 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir. 2015); Gaines v. K

- Five Const. Corp , 742 F.3d 256, 261

– 62 (7th Cir. 2014)

. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.