### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 12-1300
E RI C H U

AN G , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

C ONT I N E NTAL C A S UAL T Y C OMPAN

Y , Defen dant-Appellee.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 11 C 1 04 9 — George W. Lindb erg, Judg e.
A RGU E D D E C E MB E R 6, 2012

— D E C I D E D J UN E 13, 2014

Before F L AUM

, E A S T E R

B R O O K , and R OVN E R

, Circ uit Judges.

R OVN E R , Cir cui t Ju dg e

. E ric Huang, a former systems and softw are engin eer

, appeals the gr ant of sum mary judgment again st hi m i n th i s employment-di scri minati on acti on. He prin ci pally asserts that, by fi ring hi m, Co nt inent al Casualty Company di scri minated a ga inst hi m becau se he i s Chinese and ret ali ated again st hi m fo r complaining about w or kplace i ssu es. (The parties refer to Continental as “CNA,” Con t ine ntal’s2 No. 12-1300 parent corpor ation; for consi stency , we follow their conv ention i n t hi s o pini on.) Becaus e the undi sputed evi dence s hows that Continental lawfu lly fi red Huang becau se he refused to accept legiti mate w or k assi gnments, w e affi rm the d ist r i ct court’s judgment. The ev ents that preci pi tate d thi s laws ui t l a r gely began in 2007. A t t hat tim e, Huang had been w or kin g for CNA, a prov i der of commerci al insu rance products, for ei ght y ears. In Mar ch, Huang ’ s superv i sor tr ansferr ed hi m to a new , four

member team wi th di fferent jo b d ut ie s. CNA required ev ery member of Hu a ng ’s four -person team to be on “pager duty”
ev ery fourth w eekend. P ager duty entail ed carry ing a pager at ho me a nd being av ai lable to respond to i t 24 hours a d a y thro ughout the assi gned w eekend. Beginning i n August 2007, Huang repeat edly refused to
w or k the w e ekend hours that CNA assi gned hi m for pager duty , ci tin g fami ly obli gations. He persi sted in hi s refusal ev en after hi s superv i sor and human r esources r e min ded hi m t hat pager duty is a w or k requi rement, equally shared by all te am members, and told him that CNA could fi re hi m for refusing i t. Huang offered to w or k from the offi ce o n Sundays in exchange for havin g Monday s off but refused to carry a pager and remai n on call whi le at home during the w eekends. Aro und thi s time , Huang made a w or kplace complaint. Huang’s supervis or had told hi m, for reasons unrelated to hi s refusal to comply wi th pager duty , that Huang w as “pi ssing [hi m] off.” In respon se , Hu ang emai led the human resources department to complain about the comment. (T w o y ears earlier , Huang had also complained to human resources aboutNo. 12-1300 3
another supervis or ’s “fav or i t ism” tow ard some co-w or ker s, but the nature o f the complaint i s not i n the recor d.) In December 2007, four months after fi rst refus ing to comply wi th the on-call di rectiv e, Hu ang’s supervis or and a human resources agent met wi th hi m and gav e him o ne final oppor tuni ty to commi t t o a w eekend, w or k-from-home sch edule. They again w arned h i m that CNA w ould fi re hi m i f he di d not comply wi th the weekend-hours jo b req uir e me nt. When he again refused, CNA fo l l o w e d thro ugh and di scharged hi m. In comp li ance wi th CNA’s practic e following ter minati on of employment, i ts human resources agent asked Huang for a li st of hi s belongin gs so that someone could ret riev e them from hi s desk. Whe n Hu a ng refused to prov i de the li st and demanded to be let back to hi s w or k station, hum a n resources called a secu rity gua r d

. P olic e offi cers ev entually escorted Huang out of the bui lding and arr ested hi m, although CNA di d not pr ess charges. After pursuing hi s admini strat i v e remedies, Huang fi led thi s sui t. Only t w o o f hi s clai ms are relev ant to thi s appeal. First, he contends that the company di scri minated again st hi m based on hi s race and nati onal or i gin by fi ring hi m, in violati on of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Ti tle VII of the Ci vil Ri ghts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17

. Second, he arg ues that by fi ring hi m and havin g hi m arr ested, CNA unlaw fully ret ali ated again st hi m for hi s earlier comp l a ints about supervis or s. He relies only o n the i ndi rect metho d of prov ing these clai ms. The di stric t court gr anted CNA’s motion fo r sum mary jud gment. The court deter mined that, becau se he i gnor ed4 No. 12-1300
pager duty

, Huang did not prov i de evidenc e that he had met the company’s legiti mate jo b expectat i ons. In reaching thi s conclu si on, the court rej ected Huang’s arg ument that, becau se the pager -duty requirement w as not inclu ded in hi s jo b descri ption, i t w as not a l e giti mate requirement. The di stric t court also di st ing uish ed tw o employ ees that Huang ci ted as
s i m i l a rly s i tuated, explain ing that nei ther refused to w or k from home on weekends. Fin ally , Huang’s ret ali ation clai ms fai led, the court reasoned, becau se he di d not supp ly evidenc e that he had engaged i n the prot ected a ct i vity of complaining about unlaw ful di scri minati on. W e rev i ew the di stric t c ourt 's gr ant of sum mary judgment de nov o, exami ning the recor d in the li ght most fav or able to Huang and construing all reasonable inferen ces from the evidenc e in hi s fav or

. See, e.g. , Naficy v
. Il l

. D e p 't of Human Servs. , 697 F .3d 504, 509 (7th Ci r
. 2012). Both Ti tle VII and § 1981 forbid an employ er from fi ring an employ ee on accoun t of hi s race or nati onal or i gin , 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Titl e VII); Andonissamy v
. Hewlett-Pa ckard Co. , 547 F .3d 841, 849–50 (7 th Ci r
. 2008) (§ 1981), and ret ali at ing a g ainst an employ ee who prot ests unlaw ful employment di scri minatio n, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Ti tle VII); CBOCS W est, Inc. v
. Humphr ies , 553 U.S. 442, 451 (2008) ( § 1981). W e begin our analysi s wi th Huang’s di scri minati on c lai m. On appeal, Huang arg ues that he supp li ed evidenc e of a prim a faci e case of race di scri minati on under the indi rect method. T o establi sh a prim a faci e case of di scri minati on under ei ther Ti tle VII or § 1981, Huang needed to prov i de evidenc e that (1) he i s a member of a prot ected clas s; (2) he w as meetin g hi s employ er’s legiti mate perfor manc e expectat i ons; (3) he suffe redNo. 12-1300 5

an adv erse employment acti on; and (4) other si mi larly-s ituated, non-Chinese (or non-Asi an) emp l oy ees w ere tr eated
more favo r a bly

. See Montgo mery v
. Am. Airlin es, Inc. , 626 F .3d 38 2 , 3 8 9, 394 (7th Ci r
. 2010); Hobbs v
. City of Chicago , 573 F .3d 454, 460 n. 1 (7th Ci r
. 2009); Antonetti v
. Abbo tt Labs ., 563 F .3d 587, 591 n.4 (7th Ci r .2009). If he fai ls to prov i de evidenc e of any one of these factors, hi s clai m fai ls. Montgo mery, 626 F .3d at 394. Only the second and fourth elements of the prim a faci e case are at i ssu e on appeal, but becau se Huang contends that CNA enforced i ts jo b expectat i ons unequall y , these tw o elements merge. See Peele v
. County Mut. Ins. Co. , 288 F .3d 319, 329 (7th Ci r
. 2002). Huang contends that for three reasons he presented suffi ci ent evidenc e that he met CNA’s legiti mate expectat i ons. First, he co ntends that he offered the company a sui table alter nati v e to the weekend p a ger -duty requirement by propo si ng to come i nto w or k on Sundays instead of Monday s. Second, he arg ues that he had goo d reason for refusing pager
duty: he w anted more tim e wi th hi s fami ly

. Thi rd, he maintai ns that pag er duty w as not legiti mate becau se i t w as not written i n hi s job descri ption. All three of Huang’s arg uments are meritless

. First, employ ers are entitled to det e rmi ne their sch eduling needs, see Foster v

. Arthur Andersen , LLP , 168 F .3d 1029, 1035 (7th Ci r
. 1999), and deci de whet he r employ ees are sati sfying them,
see Collin s v
. American Red Cross , 715 F .3d 994, 1000 (7th C ir

. 2013); Naik v
. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 627 F .3d 596, 600 (7th Ci r
. 2010). Huang’s offer to w o r k S undays could not sati sfy CNA’s needs becau se the company needed hi m on call thro ughout all of Sunday and Sat urday , and he refused to6 No. 12-1300 comply

. Second, although a longing t o spend mor e tim e wi th fami ly i s understandable, i t does not undermine the legiti macy of a w or k sch edule that cuts into fami ly tim e. Grube v
. Lau Indus. Inc. , 257 F .3d 723, 729 (7th Ci r
. 2001). Nor does Huang’s prefere nce for home li fe inv ali date CNA’s conclu si on tha t Huang di d no t meet the company’s w or k expectat i ons. See Robin v
. Espo Eng'g Corp. , 200 F .3d 1081, 1091–92 (7th Ci r
. 2000). Fin ally

, CNA need not hav e memoriali zed i ts pager duty i n a jo b descri ption to make i t a v ali d employment expectat i on. Renken v. Gregory, 541 F .3d 769, 773 (7th Ci r . 2008) (explaining that “[d]e ter mining what falls wi thi n the scope of an employ ee's duti es i s a practic al exer ci se that focus es on the duti es an employ ee actually i s expected to perfor m” becau se “[f ]ormal jo b descri p t i ons often bear li ttle resemblanc e to” those duties ) (internal quot ation marks and c i tation omi tte d). Huang also prov i des no evidenc e that CNA tr eated other si mi larl y si tuated non-Chinese w or ker s more fav or ably

. T o
s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d gment, Huang needed to i denti fy another employee , o utsi de of hi s prot ected clas s, who refused a comparable w o r k assi gnment but w as not fi red. Montgo mery, 626 F .3d at 395; Hanners v
. T rent, 674 F .3d 683, 692–93 (7th Ci r
. 2012). He has not. In the di stric t court, he compared hi mself to tw o other employ ees. One i s a w or ker whom CNA permi tte d to arr i v e and leav e tw o hours early on so me w eekday s; the other asked to w or k from home and w as not fi red for asking. But Huang prese nt ed no evidenc e that ei ther of these tw o em ploy ees repeat edly refused, as Huang di d, a company or der to remain on-call o nc e e ver y four w eekends, so they are not si mi larly si tuated. Wi thout evidenc e of a comparably insubor

-No. 12-1300 7
dinate co-w o r k e r

, Huang fai led to show a prim a faci e case of di scri minati on. Despi te fai ling to establi sh a prim a faci e case, Huang maintai ns on appeal that CNA’ s proffere d reason for fi ring hi m—hi s refusal to accept w eekend on-call assi gnments—w as pret ext ual. But becau se Huang has not sati sfi ed hi s prim a faci e case, an arg ument abo ut p ret ext does not ev en aris e. See Montgo mery

, 626 F .3d at 394. In any cas e , Hu a ng ’s pr etex t arg ument just recycles hi s already rej ected contention that the on-call requirem e nt w as i llegiti mate and unequall y appli ed. Thus, for the same reasons that w e r ejected the prim a faci e case, the pret ext a r g ument also fai ls. Collin s , 715 F .3d at 1000; Dun can v

. Fleetwood Mot or Homes o f Ind., Inc. , 518 F .3d 486, 491 (7th Ci r . 2008). Fin ally , Huang arg ues that he prov i ded evidenc e that CNA ret ali ated agains t hi m by fi ring hi m and having hi m arreste d. But to surviv e sum mary judgment on thi s clai m, he needed to p resent evidenc e that he made a complaint about unla wful di scri minati on. T

omanovich v

. City o

f Indianapolis , 457 F .3d 656, 663 (7th Ci r . 2006). Though he di d complain about w or kplace i ssu es twi ce (an unelaborated prot est about “fav or i tis m” and
an objection to hi s supervis or saying that Huang w as “pi ssing [hi m] off”), Huang prov i ded no evidenc e t hat these tw o complaints were about unlaw ful di scri minati on. See id. ; Miller

v
. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 203 F .3d 997, 1008 (7th Ci r
. 2000). Wi thout evidence that Huang engaged in prot ected conduc t, the re taliati on clai m fai ls. Id. Accordi ngly

, w e AFF IRM the jud gm e n t of the di stric t court.