## 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. 07

- 2449 P AUL D. T URNER, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. T HE S A L OO N , L TD ., C HERY L G ILBERG , W I L L I A M B RONNER, a nd M AR K B RAVER, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

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 . 05 C4595

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judg e.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 9, 2009

— D ECIDED F EB RU AR Y 8, 2010

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . PaulTu rn er w or ked as a w ai ter for T he S al oo n, Ltd. ( “The S al oo n”) , a Ch i cago st eak

house, and claim s he was the vi cti m o fse ver alf or m s o f empl o y m en t di sc r i m i na ti o n. T ur ne rha d a months

- l o ng sexualr el ati onshi p w i th hi s s up er vi sorand cl ai m s that wh e n h e e n d e d i t, s h e p e r s i s t e n t l y s e x u a l l y h a r a s s e d h i m. H e a lso cla im s T h e Sa loo n d isc rim in at ed ag ain st h im2 N o. 07

- 2449

on th e b as is of a d isa b ility ; h e s u ffer s fro m p so ria sis an d sa ys th at th e re st au ra n t fa iled to ac c om m o d at e h is co ndi ti o n. Turner com pl aine d t o r es ta ur an t m an ag ement about the sexual hara ssm ent and fi l ed an EE OC ch arge about the disabi l i ty disc ri m i nati on. H e w as l ate r fi re d f orl eaving the r est auranti n the m i dd l e o fhi s s hi ft. T urn er then sued T he Saloon an d seve ral of i ts m an agers al l eging di scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on c lai m s under Ti tl e VI Io fthe Ci vi lRi gh ts A ct of1 96 4 ( “T i tl e VI I ”) a nd the Am er i can s w i th Di sabi l i ti es A ct ( “A DA ”)

. Turner a l s o a l l e g e d th a tT h e S a l o o n o we d h i m u n p a i d o v e r t i me und erthe Fai r LaborS tandards Act (“FLSA”) and I l l i noi s’ W age P aym en t an d C oll ection A ct ( “W age Paym en t A ct”). The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o rthe de fe nd a nt s , a nd T urne ra pp e a l e d. W e affirm i n p art an d reve r s e i n p art. T he district cou rt pr o per l y r ej ec te d Tur ne r ’ s cl ai m s, wi tho ne e xc ept i o n. The d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed th e h os tile -w or kp lac e c laim after excl ud i ng m ost of the al l ege d instance s ofh ar ass me n ta s t i me -b a r r e d

. T h i s w a s co nt r a r y t o th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in Nat i onal Rai l r oad Pass e nge rCorp. v. M organ , 53 6 U. S

. 1 01 , 1 20 ( 20 02) , whi chhe l d tha t i n a ho st i l e- w o r k pl ac e cl ai m , a ct s o fha r as smentf al l i ng o ut si de Ti tl e VI I ’s s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns may be c o nsi dered as l ong as s o mea c t o f h ar as sm en t o c c u rre d w ith in th e li m itations p eriod. W h en allof th e sup ervisor’s al l ege d acts ofhar ass m ent a re co nsi de re d, Turner has ra ise d a m a t e r ial iss u e o f fac t re ga rd in g w h et h er h is w or k e n vir on m en t w as ob j ec tiv e ly a n d su bj ec tiv ely h os tile . B u t T u rn e r is n otn ec es sa rily e n tit led to a tr ial;N o. 07

- 2449 3 he m ust a l so est abl i sh a basi s forT h e Sal oo n to be l i abl e. W e r em and fo r the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co nsi derat i on o f that i ssue and any furtherpro ceedi ngs that m ay be r eq u i r e d o n T u r n e r ’ s h o s t i l e - wo r k p l a c e c l a i m.

I . B a c kg r o und Paul Turner w or ked as a wait eratThe S al oo n fro m 19 99 to 2 0 0 4 , b utthe e v e nt s u nd e r l y i ngh i s e mpl o y men t
- di scri m i nati on cl ai m s o ccurr ed bet w een 2 002 and 2004. D uring this pe riod, W il li am Bron ne r w as T he Saloon’s “owner’s re prese ntati ve, ” a nd i n that capaci ty w as re sp ons ibl e for creatin g and d e v eloping the resta ura nt ’s oper ating pro cedures and repor ti ng di re ctl y t o i ts own er s, Sidney and C hery lGilber g. M ar k Bra verwas The S al oo n’s ge nera lm anage r; he r epor ted to Bro nner and over saw the r estaurant ’ s day- to- day o perat i ons. Den i se “ Di xi e” La k e an d Br etDr es ni kwer e as si stant m an ager s , a n d they reporte d directly to Brav er. Brav er, L ake, and Dres nik su p ervised the rem aining sta ff, w hich i nc lud ed Tu rner. Tu r ne r ’ s e mpl o y men th i s t o r y a tT he S a l o o n wa s mi xe d. H e was o ne o fthe re sta urant’ s highest gr oss i ng wait er s, and m any r egul arcusto m er s would speci fica l l y r equest him to serve th eir tables. On the oth er han d , Tu rner’s perso nnel fi l e was l i tte re d w i th ci tat i ons, wh i ch se em ed to accum ula te at a f ast err ate i n 200 4. I n 200 2 Turn erbeg an a sexualr el ati onshi p w i th Deni se Lak e, o ne o fhi s su per vi so r s. I t la st ed f o rabo utnine m onths, and Turner cl ai m s t o have ended i t in N ove m ber4 N o. 07

- 2449

Lake a dm i t s t o a s e x ua l r e l a t i on s hi p b utg e ne r a l l y de ni es 1 the r es tofTur ne r’ s as s er t i ons . Bec aus e we r evi ew the c ase o n The Sa l oon ’ s m ot i on f or s um m ar y judgm en t, we offerthe versi on of the f act s m ostf avorab le to Tu rner. of 2 00 2. T u rn er c on te n d s t h at L ak e re ta liat ed ag ain st h im

1 f o re ndi ngthe i rr el at i o ns hi p b y a l te r i nghi s tabl e as si g nm ents , wr i t i ngh i m up f o ru nwa r r a nt e d d i s c i pl i ne , and sexual l y har ass i ng hi m . H e describes at l eas t five sp ec ific in st an c es of ov er t s ex u al h ar as sm en t. In Jun e 2003 a cu stom er sp ill ed cha m p agn e on T urn er’s p an ts , an d w h en h e w en t to th e ba r ar ea to fi n d to w els to dr y hi m se l fo ff, La k e f o l l o wed hi m the re . S he put he rha nds i ns i d e h is po ck et s, g r ab be d hi s pen i s, a nd sai d, “ Yo u s ur e a r e s o a k e d. ” In J ul y 2 0 0 3 La k e p r e s sed her chest aga i nst hi m and ask ed, “Don’ t you m i ss m e?” On N ew Year ’ s E ve in 2 003, Lake ask ed Turner to ki ss he r. In J anuary20 04 Lake a pp ro ached Turner fro m behi nd and g rabbed hi s butto cks. Fi nal l y, in A u gu st 20 04 L ak e saw T u rn er w ith h is clot h es off w h ile h e w as ch an gin g in to h is w or k u n iform an d to ld h im tha ts he mi s s e d s e e i ngh i m na k e d. Tur ne rs ay s Lak e’ s adv an ce s we re u nw an te d a nd he tr i ed t o g e th e rt o s t o p, b uth i s p r o t e s t s o nly p r o mpt ed h er to ret alia te ag ain st h im . Sh e re p rim an d ed h im in fro nt o fo therem plo yee s, singl ed h im o ut f orundeserv ed d isc ip lin ar y w rit e-u p s, an d as sig n ed h im to les s p ro fita b le tabl es. I n J uly20 03, a fte r the s eco nd i nci dent ofhar ass m ent, T ur ne ra ppr o ac he d Br av ert o c o m pl ain abo utLa ke’sN o. 07

- 2449 5

Brav er acknow le dg es thi s m eet ing bu t s ays that Turner as ked 2 him no tt o r epo rtLake ’ s c onduc tt o Br onn eror othe rwi se launch a form al invest igat ion; he say s T urner w as only int ere s t e d i n ha vi ng La ke ’ s ha r a s s m e nt s t op . Tu r ne r denies B rav er’s ch ara cteriz atio ns. c o n d u c t
. T u r n e rc l a i ms B r a v e rd i s c o u r a g e d h i s c o mpla i nts and t oo k no re m edi al acti on. I n the sp rin g of 2 20 04, Turne rs po k e to Br o nne rabo utLa k e’ s ha r as sment and w as tol d tha t T h e Sal oo n w oul d i nvest i gat e i t. B ro n n erand Brave r tes ti fi ed i n thei r deposi ti ons that they m et w i th Lake and t ol d he r that The Sa loo n w oul d not t ol er ate any typ e o fse xual hara ssm ent. Turner conte nd s thi s r esponse was i nsuffi ci ent. Turner al so ra n i nto diffi cul ty w i th r est aurantm anage m ent ove r hi s use o fthe em plo yee co m m on a re a t o c h an ge int o h is w or k u n iform . Tu rn er h a s p so ria sis , a sk i n c o ndi ti o n tha t affec ts hi s g en i ta la r ea, e lbo ws, a nd kn ee s. H e c laim s t h at w ea rin g u n d er w ea r in c re as es h is gr oi n sweati ng, wh i ch exace rba tes hi s pso ri asi s- re lat ed i rr i tat i on. So he does not w ear und er w ear . A s a co nsequence, Turnerfre quentl y e x p ose d him sel fwh en changi ng i nto hi s workuni f or m i n the em plo yee c om m on ar ea . D u rin g th e latt er h alf of 2 0 0 4 , a fem ale em plo yee co m pla i ned about Turner’ s ind ecentexposu re s. Brav eri nsti tuted a new pol i cy that any e m plo yee who ex p ose s hi m se l fwhi l e ch an g i ngmustc ha ng e i n a r e s t r o o m. Tur ne rtho ug ht th e m en ’ s ba th r o o m was v i l e an d c l a i med thi s n ew p o l i c y u ni qu e l y t a r g e t e d h i m. On6 N o. 07

- 2449

Brav er dis pu tes the ti m ing ofthe se events
. Ag ain, f or pur- 3 pos es ofthi s appe al, we a c c eptTur ne r’ s ve rs i on. October4, 20 04, he fi l ed a c harg e with the I l l i noi s Depart

m en t o f H u m an R igh ts alleg in g t h at T h e Sa loo n d isc rim in a t e d a g a i n s t hi m b e c a u s e o fh i s p s o r i a s i s . A tth e s a me t i me , T u r n e rt r i e d t o w o r kw i th B r a v e rt o r e a c h s o me c om p ro m ise . H e p ro p os ed th at T h e Sa loo n ins ta ll a curta i n i n the c om m on a re a, cr eat i ng a pri vate ar ea f or hi m to c ha ng e. Br av ers ai d he woul d t ak e th i s i dea up w ith B ro n n er , bu t h e la te r sim p ly rej ec te d th e p ro p os al. T u rn er n ex t s u gg es te d th at h e b e p er m itt ed to ch an ge in a bas ementr o o m tha t ha d no do o r . Br av ers ai d he w ou ld th i nkabo uti t. W i th o utwai tingf o rBr av er ’ s per m i ssi on, Turnerst ar ted usi ng the bas em en t roo m as a changi n g ar ea. On October7 BravercaughtTurner naked wh i l e chang i ng i n the base m ent ro om . H e i ssued Turner a w ri tte n w ar ni ng and suspended him f ora w eek

. W hen Turner r etur ned f ro m hi s s uspensi on, Brav er tol d him he c oul d change in t h e re st ro om o fa hote lthat w as located i n the sam e bui l ding as The Sa l oo n; Turner rej ecte d thi s s ugges ti on. O n Octobe r 20, 20 04, Turner 3 fi l ed an o the rc ha r g e o fdi sabi l i ty
- r el at ed di sc r i m i na ti o n, thi s t i me wi th the EE OC. On D ecem ber15 , 20 04, i n the m i dd l e o f hi s shi ft, Turner l eft th e r es ta ur an t wi thoutno ti fy i nghi s su per vi so r s an d ra n an e rr and at his bank. N o othe r w ai terwas on duty at the t im e, and custom er s ca m e in w hi l e Turnerwas abse nt . W h en Turnerr etur ned, Brav erfi re d him

. Turner l ate r cl ai m ed he had obta in ed the host ess ’ s a pp ro valtoN o. 07

- 2449 7

W e w ill re fer to th e d efe n d a n ts c o lle ct iv el y as “T h e S a lo o n .” 4 lea ve . H e a lso co n te n d ed h is d ism iss al w as rea lly m ot ivate d by hi s a l l ega ti ons ofse x- and disabi l i ty-related hara ssm ent, nothi s unexcused abs ence. Brave r say s he disch arged Tu rner ba sed on his d iscip linary record an d for lea vin g t h e r es ta u ra n t w ith ou t p er m iss ion in the m i dd l e o fhi s s hi ft. T urn er sue d Th e Saloon and several ofi ts m an agers al l eging em plo ym ent discr i m i nati on be cause ofhi s s ex a n d d i s ab i l i t y i n v i o l a t i o n ofT i t l e V I Ia n d th e AD A. 4 H e a l so ass er te d ret al i ati on cl ai m s a l l eging he w as dism i ssed f o rc o m pl aini ngabo utThe S al o o n’ s se x a nd d isa b ility d isc rim in at ion . Fin ally , he alleg ed a c laim f orunpaid o ver ti m e under the F LSA and the sta te W age Pa y m en t Act. The S al o o n mov ed f o rs um m ary j udg m ent, a nd Turne rfi l ed a cr o ss - m o ti o n a sk i ngthe cour t t o precl ud e The S al oo n fro m a ss erti ng affi rm ati ve defe nses to the sexual

- hara ssm ent c ount. The di str i ct co ur t g r an te d The S al o o n’s m o ti o n o n a l lc o unt s an d de ni e d T urne r ’ s mo t i o n a s mo o t
. T hi s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e n ov o. Chakl os v. St e ve ns , 560 F. 3d 705, 710 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. S um m ary j udg m en t i s ap p r o pr i at e “i fthe ple ading s, the disc ove ryand dis cl osur e m ate rial s o n fi l e , a n d a n y a ffi d a v i t s s h o w th a tth e r e i s n o g e nui ne iss u e a s t o a n y m at er ial fa c t a n d th at th e m ov an t is8 N o. 07

- 2449 enti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 ( c ) . W e c on st ru e a ll fac ts an d rea so n ab le in fer en c es in the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o Turner, the nonm oving par ty. Se eM ob l ey v . Al l s t at eIns . Co. , 531 F.3d 539 , 5 4 5 (7th C ir. 2008 ).

A . Titl e V II Se xu al-H arassm en t C laim W e b eg inw ith T u rn er ’s c laim th at T h e Sa loo n is liab le f orLake’ s s ex u alhar ass m ent. Ti tl e VI Ibr oadl y pr ohibi ts a n em pl o y erfr o m “ di sc r i m i na t[ i ng ] a g ains t an y i nd i vi du alwith r espectto hi s co m pensa ti on, te rm s, condi ti ons, o r pri vi l ege s o fem plo ym ent, bec ause of su c h ind ivid u al ’ s . . . se x .” 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1). T itle V I Ig e n e r a l l y c o v e r s t wo ty p e s o fe mp l o y me n td i s c r i mi nati on: so - cal l ed dis cre te acts o fdi scr i m i nati on, such as “te rm i nati on, f ai l ure to prom ote , deni alo ftr ansfer, o r r e fus a lt o h i re , ” M organ , 53 6 U.S

. at11 4, and act s that cr ea te a ho st i l e wor k pl ac e, wh ich “ar e di ffer en t i n k i nd fro m di scr ete act s, ” id. at 11 5, an d d o n o t req u ire ta n gib le adv er se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o ns, s e eM e r i t orSa v. Bank v

. Vin s on , 477U .S. 57, 66-6 8 (1 98 6); L ap ka v . Ch er toff , 5 17 F.3d 974 , 982 (7th C ir. 2008). Turner ass er ted a host i l e- w orkpl ace cl ai m bas ed on Lake’ s a l l ege d sexualhar ass m ent. Thi s theor y r equi re s Turner to es tabl i sh that : ( 1) he was s ubj ecte d to unw el com e s exual co nd u c t, advances , o r re quests; ( 2) bec ause ofh i s sex; (3) the act s were seve re o r perva si ve en o ug h t o c r ea te a ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t; a nd (4) t h e r e is a b as is for em p loy er liab ility

. Lapka , 51 7 F
. 3d at9 82
. The S al o o n do es notc o nt es t th e fi r sto rs ec o ndN o. 07

- 2449 9

Th e di s t r i c tc ou r tm i gh th a ve i nc or r e c t l y s e t t l e d o n the 3 00- 5 day l i m i t at i ons pe ri od r athe r thanthe 18 0- day l i m i t atio ns period. By the s ta tu te’ s ow n te rm s, the 180- day period app li es ex c epti fthe pl ai nt i ffi ni t i al l y i nstitut ed pr oc ee di ngs with a Stat e or localagency. 42 U .S.C . § 2000e

- 5( e) ( 1)

. The rec ord s ugge s t s thatT ur ne r di d notf i l e any s ex ual

- har as s m en tc har ge w ith an Il li nois agency. In any event, t his potenti al errordoes notaffec tour an alysis. L ake al l eg edl y t ol d Turn erthats he (co n tin u ed ...) el em ents ofthi s cl ai m . It a rgues instea d that m osto f the a l l ege d acts ofse xual hara ssm ent a re ti m e-b arre d and that the r em ai ni ng ac ts ar e no t s eve re o r perva si ve enough t o cre ate a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtag re ed that m osto fLake’ s a l l ege d acts of sexu al h a r assm en t w ere tim e-barred un d er Title VII ’s sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons, 42 U .S.C

. § 2000 e- 5( e) ( 1)

. That sect i on pro vi des thatan EEO C charg e m ust be fi l ed
w i thi n one hund re d and ei ghty days a fterthe al l ege d un l a wfu le mp l o y me n tp r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d

. . . , e xc e pt th at [if]

. . . th e pe rs on ag gr iev ed h a s init ially i nsti tuted pro ceedi ngs with a St ate o r l oca lag ency w i th autho ri ty to gr ant o r see k r el i effro m such pra cti ce . . . , such char ge sh all be fi l ed .

. . withi n thr ee hundr ed day s afte rthe a l l eg ed unl awfule m pl o y m en t pr a c t i c e o c c ur r e d. Id. The di st ric t co urt re ad the s tatute a nd o ur ca ses to prohibi t i t fro m co nsi deri ng anyo fLake’ s di scr ete a cts of disc ri m i natory c onduct that occur re d pri orto 30 0 days fro m T u rn er ’s E E O C filing

. T h is d ec i sio n ex c lu d ed all 510 N o. 07

- 2449

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 m issed seeing him na k ed in A u g u st 200 4, w h i c h falls w ithin both a 3 0 0 -day and 180-day w indow from J anuary 18, 20 05 , the dat e ofTur ne r’ s EEO C fi l i ng. butLa k e’ s Augus t 20 04 c om m en t th ats he mis se d s ee i ng T u rn er n ak ed , w h ich th e c ou rth eld w as n otsu ffi c ien tly se ve r e o rpe r va si ve t o c o ns ti tu te unl awfuldi sc r i m i na ti o n. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s a pp roac h to the sta tute ofl i m i tatio n s c on flict s w i t h th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n in M organ . T he r e , the Co ur th e l d tha tthe s t a t ut e o fl i mi t ati o ns ap pl i es di ffer en tly de pen di ngo n whe th erthe pla i nti ffi s ass er tin g a cl ai m f ora disc re te act ofem plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on o r f ora h osti l e workenvi ro nm ent. Forthe f or m ercat ego ryo fcl ai m , “the st atute [ ofl i m i tati o ns ] pr ec l ude s r ec o ve r y f o rdi sc r et e acts . .
. tha t o cc ur ou ts id e t h e s ta tu to ry tim e p er iod .” 536 U
. S. at10 5. For th e latter category, how ever, “c ons iderat ion of th e ent ire sc o pe o fa ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t cl ai m , i nc l udi ng b eh av ior a lleg ed ou ts id e t h e s ta tu to ry tim e p er io d , i s per m i ss ibl e f o r th e pur po se s o f as se ss i ng l i ab i l i ty, so l o ng as an actco ntributi ng to t hat ho sti l e e nvi ro nm ent t ake s pla ce withi n the sta tutory t i m e per i od. ” Id. T hus, under M organ , a n empl o y ee c l ai m i nga ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t “ m ay file th e c h ar g e ( u n d er T itle V II)

. . . w ith in the s tatutor y t i m e fro m the l asthos ti l e a ct. ” P ruitt v. City of Chi cago , 472 F.3d 925 , 927 (7th C ir. 2006). Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tmi s a pp l i e d M organ . The co urt re fer re d to Lake’ s a cts ofse xual hara ssm ent a s “disc re te acts o f di sc r i m i na to r y c o nduc t, ” butTurne r ’ s se xua l

- ha r ass m en t cl ai m r est s o n a ho sti l e- w or kpl ace theo ry, a s is ty pica lo fN o. 07

- 2449 11

W e note thatThe Saloon does not argue thatLak e’ s se xual 6 harassm en t s topp ed once Bronn er and Brav er m et w ith her. W e as sum e that Lake’ s act ions , i ncluding her Au gust 2004 com m en t, w ere p art o f the sam e cou rse of con d u ct. Ti t l e V I Ic a s e s p r e s e nt i ngs i mi l a ra l l e g a t i o ns o fi na pp ro p ria te to u c h in g. See, e . g. , Kam pm i e rv. Em e r i t us Corp. , 47 2 F.3 d 93 0, 94 1-4 2 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 07 ); Pat t on v . Keys t on eRV Co. , 455 F.3d 812 , 814 (7th C ir. 2006); Va l e n t i n e v . Ci ty of Chic ago , 4 52 F.3d 670 , 682 (7th C ir. 2006); Wo rth v . T yer, 27 6 F.3d 249, 26 8 (7th C ir. 2001); Hoste tl erv. Q uality D ining, Inc. , 21 8 F.3d 79 8, 80 6-0 8 (7th C i r . 2 00 0); Baske r vi l l ev. Cul l igan Int ’ l Co. , 50 F.3 d 42 8, 43 0-3 1 (7th C i r . 1 99 5); S a x t o n v . A m. Tel

. & Te l

. Co. , 10 F
. 3d 526, 53 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)

. U nd er M organ , then, the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have as ked w he th er any o fLa k e’s a l l eg ed ac ts o fs ex ua lha r as sment occur re d w i thi n the sta tutory t i m e period ; i t i s undis

p u ted thatherA ugust 2 004 sugge sti ve com m ent fell w i thi n that w i nd ow. A s s uch, the cour t sh oul d have 6 anal yzed w hetheral lo fLake’ s co nd uct, ta ken a s a w hol e, cr eat ed an ac ti onabl e ho sti l e workenvi ro nm ent. T he answ er to tha t q u e s tion tu rns on w he th er La ke’s al l ege d h ar ass m ent was “s eve re o r perva si ve enough t o cre ate a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent. ” Lapka , 51 7 F. 3d at 982. “Whethe rthe har as smentr i se s to thi s l ev eltur ns o n a co ns te l l at i o n o ff ac to r s th ati nc l ude ‘ th e fr eque nc y o fthe d isc rim in at or y con d u c t; its se ve rit y; w h et h er it is p h ys ical l y threa teni ng o r h u m i l i ating, o r a m er e o ffensi ve utter ance; and w hetheri t unre aso nabl y i n ter fer es w i th an em plo ye e’ s workper f or m ance. ’ ” Ho stetler, 21 8 F
. 3d12 N o. 07

- 2449
at 806- 07 ( quoti ng Harris v. Forklif t Sys. , Inc. , 510 U.S

. 17, 23 ( 19 93 ) )

. F u r th e r, a c l a i m f o ra h o s t i l e wo r ke n v i r o n men t m u st be te st ed bo th ob j ec tiv ely an d su bj ec tiv ely

. Id. at 807. That i s, the pla i nti ffm ust s ubj ec tiv el y b el i eve that the ha ra ssm ent was suffi ci entl y s eve re o r perva si ve to have al ter ed the w or ki ng envi ro nm ent, and the har ass m ent m ust a l so be s uffi ci ently s ev ere o r perva si ve, fro m th e s ta n d p oin t o f a re as on ab le p er so n, to c re at e a h os tile w or k e nvi ro nm ent. For sum m ar y-j ud gm ent pu rpos es, the subj ecti ve el em ent i s r atherea sily establ i shed i n thi s ca se. Turner cl ai m s that he tol d Lake t o sto p her unw an te d se xual advances. I t is u nd i sputed that Turner com pla i ned to Br av era nd to B r o nne ro n di ffer en t o cc as i o ns abo ut Lake’ s be havi or . Turner ’ s com p l ai nts pr om pted Bronner to m eetwith Lake and expla i n that th e res taur ant di d not tol er at e an y s ex ua lha r as smento fe m pl o y ee s. At the ver y l eas t, Turnerhas cre ate d a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri al fac t o n th e s u bj ec tiv e e l em en t o f th e c laim

. Se eVal e nt i ne, 452 F. 3d a t 6 82; Worth , 276 F.3d at26 7; Ho stetler, 21 8 F
. 3d at 807. W e a l so thi nk the ev i dence i s s u ffi ci ent t o cre ate a gen ui n e i ssu e of fact on th e qu estion w he th er La ke’s ad va n c es w er e o bj ec tiv ely h os tile . W e h a v e a c kn ow led ge d be for e t h at “[d ]ra w in g t h e lin e” be tw e e n w h at is and i s no t obj ecti vel y ho sti l e “ i s no t a l w ays ea sy. ” B a s k e rvill e, 50 F .3d at43 0. On one si de l i e s exual as saul ts; otherp hysi calco ntact, whethe ra m orous o rho st i l e, f o rwhi chthe r e i s no conse nt expre ss ori m pli ed; uni nvi ted se xual sol i ci ta-N o. 07

- 2449 13 ti ons; i nti m i dati ng words o r acts ; o bscen e l anguage o r ges tu r e s ; p o r no g r a ph i c p i c t ur e s . Onthe o the rs i de l i es the o ccasi onalvul gar b anter, tinged w i th se xual i nnuend o, o fco ar se orbo or i sh worke rs . Id. ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). Perhaps the m osth ea vi l y e m phasi zed f actor i n ourcas es i s whether ther e was i napp ro p ria te to u c h in g. SeeWorth , 276 F. 3d at 268 (“T h e fa ct that conduct .

. . i nvol ves touc h i ng as o pp ose d to verbal b eh av ior in c re as es th e s e v e r ity of th e s itu at ion .”). T h is is e s pec i a l l y t r ue wh e n the t o uc hingi s o f“ a n i nt i mat e b o dy part. ” Id. ( “W e hav e p revi ousl y r eco gni zed thatdi re ct co nt ac t wi tha n int i m at e bo dy par t co ns ti tu te s o ne o fthe m ostse ver e for m s o fse xual hara ssm ent. ”)

. Fo r exam ple , w e hav e affir m ed a dam age s a w ar d oratl eas t r ej ecte d sum m ar y j ud gm en t where ther e were al l ega ti ons that a defe nd ant pl aced hi s hand on the pl ai ntiff’s brea st f or se ve ra l se c on d s, i d. , whena c o- wor k erf o r cibl y k i ss ed th e p lain tiff a n d n ea rly rem ov ed h er br as sie re , H o s t e tler, 21 8 F
. 3d at8 07-08, whena mana g ers l i d hi s ha nd up th e p lain tiff’s sh or ts , rea c h in g h er u n d er w e a r , Patt on , 455 F. 3d at 81 4, and w hen the pla i nti ff’ s s up er vi sor “hug g e d he r fi ft y t o s i xty t i mes , j umpe d i n he r l ap ten ti m es, [ and] t ouched her butto cks thi rty t i m es, ” Ka m pm ier, 47 2 F .3d at94 1. In d ee d , in ca se s w h er e w e h a ve h eld that the e vid en ce was insuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh an obj ecti ve l y h o s t i l e wo r ke nv i r o nme nt, we h a v e e mpha s i z ed th at n o t ou c h in g oc c u r re d , e . g. , B askervill e, 50 F. 3d at 431 ( i m m edi at ely a fte ro ffer i ngf ac to r s to co ns i der, no tingthe “[ su per vi so r ] ne vert o uch ed th e pl aint i ff ”) , o rtha t th e touchi ng was “r el ati vel y l i m i ted, ” Saxt on , 10 F. 3d at 534.14 N o. 07

- 2449 Jud ged against th ese cas es, T urn er’s com p lai nt s are suffi ci en t to survi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Turnerhas i denti fi ed at l eas t fi ve i nstance s of expli ci t se x u al haras sm en t, th ree of w hich w ere aggress ively p hy sical. Tu rner’s cl ai m that Lake gr abbed hi s peni s thro ugh hi s pock ets i s probabl y s evere enough o n i ts own to cr eat e a ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial f ac t. Se eJac ks on v. County of Raci ne, 4 74 F
. 3d 49 3, 4 99 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 7) ( “I t i s i m po r ta nt to re cal l that hara ssing conduct does not need to be both seve re andp er va siv e. O n e in st an c e o f co n d u c t t h at is su fficie n tly se ve re m ay b e en ou gh .” (c ita tio n om itt ed )). In add i ti on, Turneral so tes ti fi ed that Lake pr ess ed her chest aga i nst hi m w hi l e m aking a sexual l y s ugges ti ve com m ent o n one occa si on an d g ra bbed hi s butt ock s o n an other occa si on. S he al so m ade sugg est i ve com m ents w hen w atchi ng Turnerch an ge i nto hi s uni f or m . Final l y, Turner cl ai m s that Lake pu n ished hi m f orr efusi ng her se x u al a d va n c es by as sig n in g h i m t o les s p ro fita b le t ab l e s a n d by r e p r i ma n d i n gh i m in fr o n to fo th e re mplo yee s. These al l ega ti ons, ta ken t og et h er, cr eat e a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act on Turner ’ s host ile- w or kp l a c e c l a i m. Tw o fea tu res o fthi s ca se m ake i t unusualbut do not affe c t o u r re su lt. Firs t, th e p lain tiff is a m a l e a n d h is su p ervi so ri s a femal e; a l m o sta l lo fo urc as es i nv o l ving sexualhar ass m ent hav e the se xes r eve rs ed. N eve rthel ess , “[ t] he l aw i s wel lse ttl ed tha t se x u alhar ass m ent o fan em plo yee by a s up er vi sori s no t co nfined to i nstance s in vo lvin g m ale su p er v iso rs an d fem ale su b or d in at es ; i t c a n o c c uri n the fe mal e s up e r v i s o r - mal e s ub o r di nate conte xt. ” Casi ano v. AT & T Corp. , 2 13 F.3d 278 , 285 (5th C ir.N o. 07

- 2449 15 2000 ) . L ike t h e F i fth Ci rcui t, we fi nd i t hel pfulto “hypoth et ica lly tr an sp os e t h e s ex e s o f th e p ar tie s in th is c as e.” Id. I fLake w ere m al e a nd Turnerfem al e, and the al l ega ti o n s we r e s i mi l a r, th e r e wo u l d b e n o d o u b t th a t th e ca se wo u l d s u r v i v e s u mma r y j u d g me n t
. T h e s a me c o ncl usi on f ol l ows here

. Se cond, Turnerand Lake had a ni ne-m on th co nsensual sexualr el ati onshi p pri orto the al l ege d sexualh ar ass m en t. W e ha ve s ai d i n the pa sttha t “whe th er[ th e vic tim ] h ad d at ed [th e h ar as se r] p rior to th e e ve n ts in q u es tio n [is] by n o m ea n s d isp os itiv e o f ” t h e s ex u alhara ssm ent c l ai m . Am m ons - Le wis v. M e t r o. Wat e rRe cl am ati on D is t. of Gre aterCh i. , 488 F.3d 739 , 7 4 6 (7th C ir. 2007); a cco rd Jo hn son v. West, 218 F.3d 725 , 729-30 (7th C ir. 2000). To be s ur e , “ the e xi s t e nc e o fa c ur r e nto rf o r merso ci al re l ati onshi p between the hara sse r and the har ass ee can sh ed l i g hto n su ch r el ev an t que st i o ns a s whethe rthe c om p lain ed -of c on d u c t w as u n w elc om e, w h et h er it re su lte d in a w or kp lac e t h at t h e h ar as se e s u bj ec tiv ely experi en c ed as host i l e, and w hetheri t o ccurr ed beca use ofth e h ar ass ee’ s s ex. ” A m m ons-Le w is , 48 8 F
. 3d at 746- 47. Bu t a t thi s s tag e, al lTurnerm ust do i s pro vi de enough evi dence f ora re aso nabl e j ury to co n cl ud e that hi s work

p l a c e wa s b o th s u bj e c t i v e l y a n d o bj e c t i v e l y h o s t i l e . As we have expla i ned, we thi nk Turnerhas re ached thi s m ar k. T h e n e x tqu e s t i o n i s w h e th e r“ th e r e i s a b a s i s f o re mplo yerl i abi l i ty. ” Lapka , 51 7 F
. 3d at 98 2 (q uotat i on o m i tte d)

. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t r ea chthi s i ssue, ha ving ex cl ude d m o sto fthe a l l eged a ct s o fha r as smenta nd concl ud ed that the o ne that r em ai ned w as i nsuffi ci ent t o16 N o. 07

- 2449 estab li sh a hostile w orkp lace. B eca u s e L ake w as T urn er’s i mm e di a t e s up e r v i s o r, Th e S a l o o n’ s l i ab i l i t y may t ur n on its abil ity to assertaffirm at iv e d efense s un d er Bur l i ngt on Indust ries, Inc. v. Eller th , 5 2 4 U. S

. 74 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , a nd Fa rag her v . Ci ty o

f Bo c a Rat on , 524 U
. S. 775 (1998). T he se are m at te r s forthe di st r i ctc o ur t to c o ns i deri n the fi r sti nst an ce , a nd the c o ur t r emai ns fr ee o n r emand to c o nside r w he th er Th e Saloon m ay be en titl ed to sum m ary j ud gm ent in i ts f avo r on a l ternati ve gr ounds.

B. T it le V II R etali ation C laim Turner next ar gues that The Sa l oo n fi re d h im in r eta l i atio n for c om p lain in g ab ou t L ak e’s se x u al h ar as sm en t. T itle VI Ig en er al l y pr o hibi ts a n e m pl o y erfro m r et al i at i ng aga i nst a n em p l oye e forco nd uct that i s pro tect ed und er the Act

. 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a )

. Und e rthe di r e c tme thod of p ro of, T u rn er m u st “p re se n t e vid en c e o f (1) a st at u to rily prot e c t e d a c t i v i t y ; ( 2 ) a ma t e r i a l l y a dv e r s e a c t i o n t a ken by th e e mpl o y e r ; a n d ( 3 ) a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t wee n t he tw o. ” Am rhe i n v . Heal t h CareSe r v. Corp. , 54 6 F
. 3d 854, 85 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )

. He e a s i l y s a t i s fi e s the fi r s tt wo e l e ments : H e c om p lai ne d to T he Saloon’s m an agem en t abou t L ake’s a lle ged sexu al harassm en t and w as later fired. Tu rner’s su cc es s thus hing es o n w he th er he c ane st ab l i sha causalco nnecti on be tw een the two. Tur ne rma i nt a i ns the r e i s a s uffi c i e ntt e mpo r a lc o nne cti on be tw een the tw o ev en ts f ora re aso nabl e j ury to i nfe r causat i on. W e di sag re e. W e hav e r epeate dlyhel d that su spi ci o us “t i m i ng al o ne i s i ns uffi ci en t to es tabl i sha genui ne i ssue ofm at er i alf act to supp or t a r eta l i ati onN o. 07

- 2449 17 cl ai m . ” Ka m pm ier, 472 F.3d at93 9; s e eal s o Argyropou l os v. Ci ty of

Al t on , 5 39 F.3d 7 24, 7 34 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( se ve nw eek interva l d oes not prec lud e sum m ary ju d gm en t). H ere, th ere is m ore tha n h alfa yea r sep arating T urn er’s com pla i nts t o Bronneran d h i s e ventualdi sm i ssa l

— f ar too l ong to w i thsta nd sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Turner su gge sts thata M ar ch 200 4 e m plo yee ev al uatio n in w h ich B ra ve r ga ve h im a p os i t i v e r e vie w is ev i den ce o fa c au sa lc o nne ct i o n b etwee n h i s co m plai nt and his te rm i nati on. T h e f act that Braverga ve Turner a pos i ti ve evaluati on m onths a fterT ur ne ri n i t i a l l y c o mpla i ned to Braverst ro ngl y s ugges ts the o pp osi te

— that Braver ’ s Dec em b er 20 04 deci si on t o fi re Turnerwas not m oti vate d by hi s co m pla i nt s. T urner ’ s a rgum ent a l so fails to ac c ou n t for th e fac t th at fro m M ar c h 20 04 u n til hi s t e r mi na t i o n, he r e c e i v e d a t l e a s t t en r epr i man ds from m an ag ementf o r, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, “ st r o ng

— ar m [ i ng] ” a n em plo yee , f ai l i ng to work w i th busbo ys, i ns ubo r di na ti o n t o B raver, ha vinga “ m el tdo wn” in the ki tchen, f ai l i ng to at tend to custo m er s, and f ai l i ng to sh o w up f o rwor ka s sc he dul ed. In add i ti o n, he re c eiv ed a w ee k-lo n g s u sp en sio n fo r e x p os in g h im se lf w hi l e changi ng i n the base m ent o fthe re sta urant. Fa ced w i th thi s s tr i ng o fdi sci p li ne, and w i th the te n-m onth ga p s e pa r a t i ngh i s c o mpl a i ntab o utLa k e ’ s s e xu a lh a r ass m en t fr o m hi s term in at i o n, no r at i o na lj ur y c o ul d c o ncl ude tha tthe r e wa s a c a us a lc o nn e c t i o n b e t we en Tur ne r ’ s s t a tu t o r i l y pr o te ct ed co nduc t an d hi s te r m i na ti o n. T u rn er als o a t t e m p t s t o les se n th e fo rc e o f h is une xc us ed ab se nc e i n th e m i ddl e o fhi s sh i ft byc l ai m i ng18 N o. 07

- 2449 th athe ha d o bt aine d pe r m i ss i o n t o l ea ve fr o m the h o s t e s s , wh o m h e c a l l s a “ p s e u d o ma n a g e r . ” E v e n i fwe as su m e th athe r ec ei ved su ch pe r m i ss i o n a nd tha t th e ho st es s ha d the a utho r i tyt o grantThe S al o o n’ s o nl y o ndu ty w ai te r p er m i ssi on t o run er ra nd s duri ng business hou rs

—b oth poi nts o fco ntenti on

— the r eco rd sugg est s that Braverdi d no t know about Turner’ s cl ai m o fper m i ssio n . A c c or d in g t o b ot h T u r n er ’s a n d B ra ve r’s d ep os iti ons, wh en Turner re turned fro m hi s ba nk er ra nd , Brav er ca l l ed him i nt o hi s o ffi ce a nd fi r ed hi m f o rb eingabs en t w i thout l eave wh i l e cust om er s a w ai ted se rvi ce. Turner di d no t te l lBr av er tha t he ha d pe r m i ss i o n t o l ea ve the re st au r a n t o r ev en arg u e a b ou t h is t er m in at ion, so h is b ela t e d cla im of p er m iss ion from a “p su ed om an ag er ” is b esi de the poi nt. Turnerhas not est abl i shed a t ria b le i ssue off act on hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m under the di re ct m eth od of p roof. Turner al so proce eds und er the i nd i re ct m etho d of proo f

. The di stincti on be tw een the tw o m etho ds ofpro of

“ i s o ft e n fl e e t i ng ” l a r g e l y “[ b ] e c a us e b o th metho ds all ow the use ofci rcum sta nti alev i dence. ” Ma r t i n o v . M CI C om m c’ns Se rvs . , Inc. , 5 7 4 F .3 d 44 7, 45 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). In any e vent, under the i nd i re ct m etho d , T u rnerm ust “pro v[ e] that[ ] he ( 1) enga ged i n a s tatutor ily prot ecte d acti vi ty; ( 2) m et h[i s] em ployer ’ s l egi ti m ate expecta ti ons; ( 3) suffered an a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on; and ( 4) was tr eat ed l ess f avo rabl y than s im i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee s w h o d id n oten ga ge in s ta tu to rily p ro te c te d ac tiv ity .” A m rhe in , 54 6 F
. 3d at 859. T u rn er fails t o e s ta b lish h is p rim a fa c ie c as e e ss en tia lly f o rth e s a me r e a s o n s h e f a i l s u n d e rth e d i r e c tme th o d : NoN o. 07

- 2449 19

r at i o na lj ur y c o ul d b el i ev e th at Tur ne rwas meet i ngThe Sal oo n’s l egi ti m ate j ob expectat i ons. W e hav e j ust descr ibed the l i tan y of ci tat i ons that Turner re cei ved fro m M ar ch to Decem bero f20 04. Fur ther, w e ad d that Turner c an n otp oin t t o a n y ot h er em p loy ee w ith a sim ilar ly checke re d perso nnel fi l e who w as tr eat ed differ entl y. I nd eed, Turnerhas not su gg ested that anyo ne el se f ai l ed to com p ly w ith sim il ar m a n a g e m en t po li cies, an d there is no eviden ce in th e record that any oth er w aiter l eft the r est aurantco m ple tel y unatt ended d urin g busi ness ho ur s wi tho utb e i ngdi sci pl i ne d. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tp r o per l y g ra nted sum m ary j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on T u r n e r ’ s T i t l e V I Ir e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.

C . A D A D iscrim ina ti on Claim W e turn next to Turner’ s cl ai m fordi sabi l i ty disc ri m i nati o n in vi o l at i o n o fthe ADA

. The ADA make s i t unl awful f oran e m plo yerto “di scr i m i nate aga i nst a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alo n the basi s o fdi sabi l i ty i n re gar d to

. . . te rm s, c o nd i t i o ns , a nd p r i v i l e ges o fe mpl o y men t
. ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 2112 ( a). Turnerar gues that The Sa l oo n dis cri m i nated ag ain sth im in v iola ti o n o f th e A D A by req u irin g h im to ch an ge in th e “fecal con tam inated , un san itary ” m en ’s b a th r o o m r a th e rth a n i n th e e mpl o y e e c o mmo n a r e a . He fu r th e rf a u l t s T h e S a l o o n ’ s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o a c c o mm odate hi s disabi l i ty w hen i t rej ecte d hi s proposa ls to l ethi m c ha ng e i n the b as emento rb eh i nd a c ur ta i n. ForTurnerto sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent under these th eo rie s, h e m u st firstsh ow th at h e is “d isa b led ” w ith in th e m ea n in g of t h e A c t. Id. ; E E O Cv. Le e’s Log C abin, Inc. ,20 N o. 07

- 2449 54 6 F .3d 4 38 , 442 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); M o bley, 53 1 F
. 3d at 545. The A DA defi nes “ disabi l i ty” as : ( A ) a phy si ca lo rment ali m pai r m en t th ats ubs ta nti al l y l i m i ts one orm or e m aj or li fe a cti vi ti es ofsuch in d ivid u al; ( B) a r eco rd o fsuch a n i m pai rm ent; o r (C ) be in g re ga rd ed as h av in g s u c h an im p air m en t
. . . . 42 U .S.C

. § 1 21 02 (1). T u rn er m ain ta in s t h at h is p so ria sis const i tutes a physi cali m pai rm ent that l i m i ts hi s abi l i ty to w al k, a m aj or life act i vi ty und er 29 C

. F.R. § 1630

. 2(i ). Forthi s a rgum ent to succe ed, Turnerm ust e stabl i sh that he i s “ substa nti al l y l i m i ted” in hi s abi l i ty to w al k. The ap p licabl e AD A r egul ati ons expla i n that a per son i s “s ubs ta nt i al l y l i m i te d” i n a maj o rl i fe ac ti vi ty w he n he i s “ [ s] i gni fi cantl y r est ric ted as to the condi ti on, m anner or du ra ti on und er w hi ch [ he] can perf orm a parti cul ar m aj or l ife activity as c o m p a r e d to the con d iti on, m an ne r, o rdur at i o n un derwhi chthe a ve rage pe r so n in the g e n e ral p op ulation ca n p erform that sam e m aj or l ife a c t i v i t y . ” 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 6 3 0
. 2 (j ) ( 1 ) ( i i )

. Th i s r e g ul a t i on a dds that “an i nd i vi du al w ho, because of an i m pai rm ent, can onl y wal k forve ry b rie f peri ods o fti m e would be substa nti al l y l i m i ted i n the m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty ofwalk i ng. ” Id. § 1 630 app. O n t he o therhand, “a n i nd i vi du alwh o had on c e b ee n ab le t o w alk atan ex tr ao rd in ar y s p ee d w ou ld not be substa nti al l y l i m i ted i n the m aj or l i fe acti vi ty o fwal k i ngi f, a s a r es ul t o fa phy si ca li m pai r m en t, he orshe w er e o nl y abl e t o w al k a t a n ave ra ge speed, o r eve n at m oder ate l y b el ow aver age speed. ” Id.N o. 07

- 2449 21 Ou r case s furthercl ar ify w h en an ind i vi du ali s s ubst an tia lly lim ite d in h is ab ility to w alk

. W e ha v e h eld that w al ki ng w i th diffi cul ty i s not a si gni fi can t restr i cti on on w alk in g. Sq ui b b v. M e m ’ l M e d. C tr. , 4 97 F. 3d 775, 78 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. W e hav e a l so hel d that a n em plo yee i s no t disabl ed w hen he adm i tte d that he co uld walk“di sta nces of les s t h an a m ile ‘ c o n sis te n tly ,’ [an d ] th at a m ile w alk

‘ w oul dn ’ t be any probl em as l ong as I ’ m payi ng at tenti on to w h at I’m d oin g.’ ” M oore v. J
. B
. H unt Tra n sp ., Inc. , 22 1 F. 3d 944, 95 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. Otherci rcui ts have re ached sim ilar d et er m in at ion s. SeeWo o d v. C rown Redi-M ix, Inc. , 339 F
. 3d 68 2, 68 5 ( 8th Ci r . 20 03 ) ( no di sabi l i ty w he re pla i nti ffco uld walk a q uart er - m i l e be f or e hav i ng to st op an d res t); Bl ack v. Roa dwa y Exp r e s s , Inc. , 2 97 F. 3d 445, 45 1 ( 6th Ci r. 20 02) ( no disabi l i ty w here pl ai nti ffwalk s w ith a lim p an d p lain tiff’s kn ee be c om es “d ys fu n c tio n al” aft er tw o m iles of w alk in g); Taylor v

. Pa thm ark Stores, Inc. , 17 7 F. 3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 1999) (no disab il ity w he re em plo yee walk ed w i th a l im p a n d r equi re d a te n-m i nute break d uring every hou r ofw alki ng or stan d ing). I ti s c l e a rfr o m t h e s e c a s e s th a tT u r n e rh a s n o tc o me c los e t o e st ab lish in g t h at h is p so ria sis s u b s ta n tia lly lim its h is a b ili t y to w alk . A t w or st, he sa ys h is p so ria sis p er iod ica lly c au se s “ se ve re p ain ca u s i n g h im to w alk w i thh i s l e g s mo r e a s t r i de a pp e a r i nga s a l i mp. ” T ur ner adm i ts to pla yi n g pick

- up baske tbal land basebal la few ti m es per w eekduri ng t he sum m er . Ind eed, he e ven t e s tifie d th at h e c an “b icy c le a n d w alk usual l y fi ne. ” I n ligh t o f th es e a d m iss ion s, T u rn er ’s c laim th at h e is disabl ed und erthe m eani ng o fthe A ct fail s a s a m att er of l aw . Th e d istri ct cou rt prop erly gran ted sum m ary22 N o. 07

- 2449 j ud gm ent di sm i ssing Turner ’ s di sabi l i ty- disc ri m i nati on c l a i m.

D . A D A R etali ation C laim T u r n e ra l s o c l a i ms h e w a s fi r e d i n r e t a l i a t i o n f o rc o mpl aini ngabo utThe S al o o n’ s no - na k edn ess po l i cy . The dist ri c t j u d ge di d not m enti on thi s co unt i n hi s o pini on gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants, and f or un de r s t a n d ab l e r e a s o n . D e s p i t e a l l e g i n gs e p a r a t e c l a i ms for ret alia tio n u n d er bo th th e A D A an d T itle V II, Turner’ s brie f s in the dist ri ct c ourtr efer ence hi s “ re tal i ati on cl ai m ” a s a wh ol e. Turnerco uld h av e easi l y a voi ded confusi on byke epi ng hi s cau se s o fact i on s epara te fro m o ne ano ther

. Rega rdl ess , the parti es have ar gu ed th e A D A -re ta l i at i o n c l ai m s epa r at ely o n a ppea l ; f o rthe sak e o fco m ple tenes s, we w i ll b rie fl y s ket ch the re quir ed anal ysi s. The f act that Turner i s not disabl ed und erthe A DA i s no t fat al t o h is re ta liat ion cla im . 42 U .S.C . § 12 20 3(a ); Squ ibb , 497 F. 3d at 786. “The Ac t pr ohibi ts an em plo yerfro m re tal i ating ag ai nst a n em p loy ee w ho has r ai sed an A D A c laim , w h et h er or n ot th at em p loy ee u l t i m at ely succee ds on the m er i ts o f that cl ai m . ” Squib b , 49 7 F
. 3d at 786. A s in the Tit l e VII c on text, Turnerm ay proce ed und erthe dir ect and i nd i re ct m et h od s o fpro of

. To pr ove re tal i ati on und er the dir ect m etho d, Turner m ust “present[ ] evi dence of : ‘ ( 1) a sta tutor i l y prot ecte d a cti vi ty; ( 2) an adv er se a ct i o n; a nd ( 3) a c au sa lc o nne ct i o n b etwee n the tw o.’ ” Id. ( quoti ng Bu rks v . Wi s . Dep ’ to f Tr ans p. , 4 6 4 F
. 3 d 74 4 , 7 5 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) )

. T urne rme e t s the fi rs tN o. 07

- 2449 23
tw o el em ents ofthe tes t be cause he fil ed dis cri m i nati on c h ar ge s w ith th e E E O C an d w as lat er fired . H is c laim f ai l s, however, under the causa l

- connect i on e l em ent. Turner aga i n re l i es m ost l y on tim i ng. A l though the te m pora l co n n ec tio n is clo se r for h is A D A -re ta liat ion cla im , i t st i l l i s no t en o ug h. H e was fi r ed r o ug hl y tw o m onths aft e r h e filed h is E E O C ch ar ge . W e h av e p re vio u sly he l d tha t a se ve n- wee kpr o xi m ityi n t i m e i s no t su ffi ci en t to estab li sh a cau sal conn ection to w ithsta nd su m m a ry j ud gm ent. Se eArgyropou l os , 53 9 F
. 3d at 734. Beyond ti m i ng, Turner o ffer s the sa m e a rgum ents as h e d i d i n the Ti t l e V I Ir e t a l i a t i o n c o n t e x t, wh i c h we h av e a lre ad y rej ec te d . Tu rn er ’s A D A -re ta liat ion cla im ther ef or e f ai l s under the dir ect m etho d o f proo f

. S i m i l ar l y, f o r the r e a s o ns c a nv a s s e d ab o v e , Tu r ne r ha s no t e sta bl i shed hi s pri m a f aci e ca se und erthe i nd i re ct m ethod be ca us e he c anno t sh o w ei th ertha t he was pe r f o r m i ng h is job s at isfa c to rily o r th at th er e is an y s im ilar ly sit u a t e d em p loy ee w h o w as tre at ed d iffer en tly

. See Squib b , 49 7 F
. 3d at 788- 89.

E . Wa g e C l a i ms Fi nal l y, we turn to Turner ’ s wage c l ai m s. Turner ass er ts that from l ate 20 03 thro ugh 200 4, he work ed w i th Lake o n s e v e r a lS un da y s a nd tha tLa k e o ft e n di r e cted hi m to al terhi s t i m e r eco rds t o m ake hi m i nel i gib l e for24 N o. 07

- 2449

Bec aus e the pr ot ec t i ons ofthe I l l i noi s W age Pay m en tan d 7 C o lle ct io n A ct ar e c o e x t e n s i v e w ith th o se o f th e F L S A , C ondo v . S ysc o Corp. , 1 F .3d 599 , 60 1 n .3 ( 7th C ir. 19 93 ), ou r an aly sis ofTur ne r’ s F LSA c l ai m appl i es e qua l l y t o h i s I l l i noi s W age P a y me n tA c tc l a i m. ove rt i m e pay i n vi ol ati on o fthe FL SA , 29 U
. S. C. § 2 07. 7 Turner bel i eve s he h as been denie d a “s ubstanti al am ount” ofm oneybec ause ofL ake ’ s a cti ons. H e a l so sugge sts he ha s info rm ati on co nfi rm i ng the am ou n t of ove rt i m e he w as denie d, but thi s “ i nfo rm ati on” has neverbee n pla ced i n th e reco rd. The S al oo n chal l enged Turner’ s cl ai m s byintroduci ng i ts payro l lr eco rds, wh i ch sh ow th a t L a ke an d T u rn er w or ke d to ge th er on on ly f o u rS u n d a y s d ur i n gth e t i me p e r i o d a ti s s u e . O nt wo of th ose Sun d ays, T urn er’s hou rs for th e w e e k w ere extr em el y l ow, suggesting tha t a ny ti m e- shavi ng o n Sundaywa s u nn e c e s s a r y . F o rthe o the rt wo S un da ys, Turner actual l y r ecei ved ov er ti m e pay. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t d i sm i ss i ngthe wage c la i m s, c o nc l udi ngtha t Tur ne r ’ s ar g um en ts w er e “ u n su p p or t e d ip se d ix it [th at ] is flat ly r efut ed bythe ha r d e vi den ce pr o ff ered b y S al o o n. ” The c ou rt ’s d ec isio n w as m an ifes tly co rre c t; th is c laim is fl i m syi n the e xt r eme. Turne rha s the bur deno fpr o ving that he per f or m ed ove rt i m e w or k f orwh i ch he was not p r o pe r l y c o mp e n s a t e d , a n d i fh e c o n t e n d s th a th i s e mplo yer ’ s r eco rds a re notaccurate

— w hi ch he doe s

— then he must“ pr o duce [ ] s uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o s ho w the amoun t an d e xt en t of th at wor ka s a m at te ro fj us t an d re aso nabl e infe re nce. ” A nd erson v. M t. Cl e m ens P o tteryN o. 07

- 2449 25

T he on e p iece o f reco rd ev id en ce T u rn er p oin ts to

— a doc u- 8 m ent crypti cal ly s aying “Tu rner 38. 88 hours

— cu t fi r st”

— is inco nc lusiv e at b est.

2- 8- 10 Co. , 328 U .S. 68 0, 68 7 (1 94 6), s upe rs e de d on othe rgrounds by s tatut e, Por tal

- to-P or tal A ct o f19 47, 29 U
. S. C. §§ 251- 26 2. Altho ug h Tu r ne rdi spu te s th e ac cur ac y o fThe Sal oo n’s r eco rds, hi s m er e a sse rt i on s are insuffi ci ent t o cre ate a j ury i ssue. Se eJac ks on v. E. J
. Br ac h Corp. , 17 6 8 F.3 d 9 71 , 985 (7t h C ir. 19 99 ); see also M a tsush ita E lec. Ind us. Co. v. Ze ni t h Radi o Corp. , 4 75 U. S

. 5 74, 5 86 ( 19 86 ) ( o ppo ne nt o fs u mma r y j u d g me ntmu s td o mo r e th a n r a i s e “ s o me m etap hy sical dou bt as to t h e m aterial facts”). T urn er’s wa g e c l a i ms we r e p r o pe r l y di s mi s s e d. Fort h e fo re going r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t i s A FFI RMED to the e x ten t tha t it d ism issed Tu rner’s A DA cl ai m s, h i s o ver ti m e cl ai m s, and hi s Ti tl e VI Ir eta l i at i o n cl ai m . Re g ar di ngTurne r ’ s se xua l

- ha r as sment cl ai m under Ti tl e VI I, the j ud gm ent i s R EVER S ED a nd the case i s R EMA NDE D f o rfur th erproceedi ng s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.