## In the



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

F o rth eS ev e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3754 H OWARD F LE I S HMAN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ONTINENT AL C ASU ALT Y C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 09- cv-00414

—E dmon d E . C hang, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 18, 2012

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 18, 2012

B efore F LA UM, S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r w or ki ng forConti nental Casual ty Com pany ( “Conti nental ”) for near l y tw enty yea rs , H oward Fl ei shm an suffer ed a brai n aneuri sm that re quir ed hi m to i nter m i tte ntl y m i ss w ork fro m 20 03 to 2005
. Fo l l owing hi s m edi calprobl em s, he c ontinued to w or k o n w or ker s’ co m pensation c lai m s a s a st affat
torneyand w as ass i gned to a new gr oup that hand l ed high -value case s. U nfortu na tely for Flei sh m an, his s up ervi sor bega n re cei vi ng a ser i es ofper f or m ance- re l ate d2 N o. 11

- 3754

com pla i nts that ul ti m ate l y l ed to hi s t er m in atio n i n 200 7 at the a ge offi fty- f our. Fl ei shm an fi l ed sui t under the Ag e Di s c r i mi na t i o n in Empl o y men tAc t( “ ADEA”) an d the A m ericans w ith D isabil iti es A ct (“A D A ”), alle gin g th atC on tin en ta l d isc r i m i n at ed ag ain sth im be ca us e o fhi s ag e an d a di sabi li ty stemm i ngfr o m the an eu rism
. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d Con tinen tal’s m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent, and w e affi rm . Fl ei shm an offer s no ev i dence ofag e di scr i m i nati on a nd does not me e tth e d e fi n i t i o no fd i s ab l e d u n d e rth e AD A.

I . B a c kg r o und H oward Fl ei shm an began work i ng forConti nental Cas ua l tyCo m pany in 1 98 4 as a t r i ala tt o r ne y de fen di ng workers’ c o m pen sa ti o n c l ai m s. Da vi d I zz o o ve r sa w the att orneys i n Conti nental ’ s Ch i cago sta ff counsel offi ce, includ ing Flei sh m an . Izzo re po r te d t o J ac que l i ne J ohnson, w h o over saw al lo fConti nental ’ s s taffco unsel offi ces. Beginning i n 200 3, Fl ei shm an suffer ed a s er i es of m edi calprobl em s r el ate d to a b ra i n aneuri sm . A s a re su l t, he t oo k inter m i tte nt m edi call eave s be tw een J uly20 03 and June 20 05 . In the m i dst o fthes e t re atm en t s , Izzo m en tioned to Fl eishm an thathis nu m bers “w er e o ff” beca use he w as out on l eave . I zzo i nquir ed w hetherFl ei shm an tho ught ab out re ti re m ent a nd , i fso , that I zzo would m ake sur e he re cei ved se ver ance. Fl ei shm an decl i ned and d i d not r equest anothe r lea ve or a c c om m od at ion aft er h is Ju n e 2 0 0 5 r e tu rn, although he now had a no ti ceabl e dent on th e si de of hi s hea d and coul d no l onge r dri ve.N o. 11

- 3754 3 Inea rly 20 05 , C on tin en ta l cre at ed th e M ajor C as e U n it ( “M CU ”) to handle hi gh- exposure cl ai m s a nd as si gned Flei sh m an to the n ew g r o u p . H e rem ained i n th e staff counselo ffi ce o ver see n by I zzo, but Fl ei shm an pre pared r epo r ts f o ra dj us ters i n the M CU a i m ed atmin i m i zing Con tine nt al ’ s co st s and e xpo su r e. Ea r l y i n the a ss i g nme n t, Na n e t t e Hu s n i k, a c l a i ms ma n a g e ri nth e MCU , received com p laint s from adj us ters abou t F le ish m an ’s wo r k

. Inmi d

- 2 0 0 5 a n d , u p o nr e c e i v i n ga d d i t i o n a lc o mpla i nts, ag ai n i n 200 6, H usni k r el ayed these com pla i nts to Izzo and Jo hnson, bo th o fwh om co nfi rm ed the l egi tim acy of the con cern s regard ing Flei sh m an . Fl eishm an ’s c r i t i c s w e r e n o tl i mi t e d t o th e MC U e i th e r, a s c l a i ms speci al i st R in a Patelr equeste d that Izzo tr ansferal lo f h er w or k f r om Fleis h m an to an ot h er st aff a tt or n ey in the o ffi ce in M ar ch 200 6. I zzo inform ed hi m o fthes e concerns, and on o ne o ccasi on J ohnson express ed si m i l ardi ss at i sf ac ti o n t o F l ei sh m an . These i ssues r epres ented a c h an ge ofco urse f or Fl ei shm an, wh o had perf or m ed hi s j ob du ti es adequ a t ely un til2005. H e received a perform an ce aw ard i n 200 3 a nd a ra i se base d on h i s 2 004 perfor m ance r evi ew . H ow ev er, Fl ei shm an r ecei ved a “3” on hi s 2 005 perfor m ance re vi ew , m eani ng he onl y m et “m ost ” e xpectati ons. Thi s s cor e a l so m ade hi m i nel i gib le for a ra i se. I zz o discus se d the r ev i ew wi thF l ei sh m ani n the s pr i ng of 2 00 6. A c c or d in g t o Fle ish m an , I z z o in for m ed h im that J ohnson m ade the i nel i gibi l i ty deci si on, an d wh en F l e i s h ma ng o tu p s e t, I z z o s a i d “ h e y, s h e ’ s o u tt o g e tme too, ” r efer ring to J ohnson

. Fl ei shm an furtherte sti fi ed that I zzo sa i d he w ou ld ta l k t o M ar k S tev ens, head o f4 N o. 11

- 3754 l eg als er vi ce s, abo utg et ting h im a r ai se s i nc e he m issed ti m e i n 2 00 5, b utI zz o i nf o r m ed hi m the ne xt daytha t S te ve ns s ai d t i m e offd id no t m i ti g at e th e i ssues i n the evaluati on unl ess Fl ei shm an t oo k s hor tter m di sabi l i ty. F l ei sh m an ’ s i ss ue s p er si st ed. I zz o c o nt i nue d r ec ei ving c o mpl a i n t s fr o m c l a i ms a dj u s t e r s a n d , a ft e rr e v i e wi ng a num bero fFl ei shm an’ s fi l es, I zzo e- m ai l ed J ohnson i nfo rm i ng her that he saw why the adj uster s w er e d issat i sfi ed. In Se ptem ber20 06, afterco nsul ti ng with J ohnson and a hum an r eso urces co nsul tan t, I zzo pl aced F l ei sh m ano n a pe r f o r m an ce i m pr o ve m en t pl an . The pl anpr o vi ded th ati fF l ei sh m andi d no t i m pr o ve i n the ne xtsixty d ays, Con tinen tal could take d iscipli na ry acti on incl ud i ng te rm i na tio n. Despi te these m eas ures , Todd Lew i s, H u sni k’ s s up er vi sor, co m pla i ned that Fle ish m an “b as ica lly d id n ot h in g for [th e M C U ].” In re sp onse , I zzo m et w i th H usni k who re i ter ate d her diss a t isfa c tio nw ith Fleis h m an . Inea rly 20 07, H u sn ik an d L ew is in for m ed Izzo th att h ey w ou ld n otp er m it Fl ei shm an to work on a ny m or e M CU cases. Iz zo bel i eve d ter m i nati on was the appropri ate r esol uti on t o these i ss ue s, a nd a fte rI zz o c o ns ul te d wi thJ o hns o n a nd Conti nental ’ s a ssi sta nt v ice presi dent ofhum an r eso urces , F l ei sh m an ’ s empl o y m en t was t er m i na te d i n J anuar y 2 00 7. Izz o w as fort y-e i g h t a t th e t im e, w h ile F l ei sh m an w as fi fty
- f o ur . F o urmonths l at er, Co ntine nt alhi r ed f o r ty
- ei g ht

- y ea r - o l d Pa tr i ckCr em in a nd t r a n s fe r r e d s o me o fF l e i s h ma n ’ s c a s e s t o h i m. Sh or tly aft er h is t er m in at ion, Fleis h m an f i l e d su it a g a i ns tCo nt i ne nt al al l e g i ngv i o l a t i o ns o fthe ADEAN o. 11

- 3754 5

Flei shm an conti nually as se rt s thatthe dist ri ctcourt rel ie d 1 exc lus ivel y on C onti nental ’ s N orther n D is tr ic t o f I lli nois Local R ule 56. 1 st atem ent of f act s and incor rec tl y took the evidence in the l ight m ostf avorab le to th e d efendan t. W e do not s ee a (co n tin u ed ...) an d A D A
. T he d istri ct court gran ted C o n tinen tal’s m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent, fi nd i ng tha t F l ei shm an f ai l ed to pro vide di re ct e vi dence ofag e di scr i m i nati on and w as not disable d under the A DA
. Fl ei shm an t i mely a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on F l e i s h ma nc h a l l e n g e s th e d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e n t r y o fs u mm ary jud g m en t ag ains t hi m o n b o thhi s AD EA a nd AD A c l a i ms . T h e A D E A ma k e s i tu n l a wfu lf o ra ne mp loy er t o “dis charg e a ny ind i vi du al

. . . bec ause ofsuch in d ivid u al’s ag e.” 29 U .S.C . § 62 3(a )(1) ; s e eal s o 2 9 U. S
. C. § 6 31( a) ( l i m i ti ng pro tect i ons t o i nd i vi du al s o ver f or ty)
. S i m i l ar l y, the A DA pro hibi ts an em plo yerfr om disc harg i ng “aqual i fi ed i nd i vi du al on the bas i s o fdi sab i l i ty . ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 12( a)
. S ummar y j ud g men ti s a pprop ria te w hen ther e i s no ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri al f act such thatthe m ova nt i s en titl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m at t e r o f law . Fed . R. C iv. P . 56; B erry v. Ch i. Tran s i tAuth. , 618 F.3d 688 , 69 0 -91 ( 2010 ). To su rvi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent, the n on m ova nt m ust pro du ce suffi ci ent a dm i ssibl e e vi dence, take n i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le to i t, to r etur n a j ury ver dicti n i ts f avor. Id. at 691. W e r evi ew the d ist ric t court ’ s deci si on 16 N o. 11

- 3754

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 bas i s f or the s e as s er t i ons . Pur s uan t to the l oc al r ul e, Conti nental su b m itted a li stofprop osed und is pu ted f act s that Flei shm an answere d p aragraph b y paragrap h. The d is tr ic t c ou r ti s n otr e q ui r e d t o dis r e ga r d a f a c ts up po r t e d b y depos i t i on t es t i m ony bas ed s ol el y on Fle i s hm an ans weri ng the par agr aph “de ni ed. ” Add i t i ona l l y, t aki ng i nfer en c es in fa v o r o f F l e i sh m a n d o e s n o tr e q u i r e a c c e p t i n g F l e i s h m a n ’s con c l us i ono n wha ta pi e c e o fe vi de nc e i nd i c a t e s . Ra the r, th e c o u rt in d e p e n d en tly re v ie w s th e e v id en ce an d , if i t c reat es an inferen ce, w e tak e tha t inferen ce in th e ligh t m ost fav or ab le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . de novo

. I nd i s c r i mi n a t i o nc a s e s , th e p l a i n t i ffc a ns u r v i v e s u mm ar y j ud gm ent under ei therthe dir ect ori nd i re ct me th o d

. F o rr e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d i nmo r e d e t a i lb e l o w, F l e i s hma n pr o c e e ds und e rthe di r e c t
- e v i de nc e me tho d. Ta ken l i ter al l y, di re ct e vi dence w oul d requi re an a dm i ssi on bythe em plo yer, but w e als o perm i t ci rcum sta nti al evid en ce that “p oints d irectly t o a discrim inatory re aso n f orthe em plo yer ’ s a cti on. ” D avis v. Con- Way Transp. Cent. Ex pre ss, Inc. , 368 F.3d 776 , 783 (7th C ir. 2004 ) ( a l t e r a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. W e ha v e a l s o c a l l e d thi s a “c o nv i nc ingmos ai c” o fc i r cumst an ti ale vi den ce , b ut fu n d a me n t a l l y th e p l a i n t i ffmu s tc o n n e c tth e c i r c u msta nti alev i dence to the em plo ym ent a c tio n such that a r eas onabl e j urorco uld infer the e m plo yeract ed f or d isc rim in at or y re as on s. See R h o d e s v. Ill. D ep’t o f Tran sp ., 359 F.3d 498, 504 (7th Cir. 2004).N o. 11

- 3754 7 A. Summa ryJ udg me ntB ur de ns A s a n i ni ti alm att er, the parties di spute wh at a pl aint i ff’ s su m m ary j udg m en t bur deni s i n ADEA a nd A DA cas es. Fl ei shm an ar gues th at h e m ust pro du ce f acts that p er m i t aj ury to i nfe r that disc ri m i nati on was a
“ m o t i va tin g fa c to r” in h is t er m in at ion . H ow ev er, Gro s s v. FB L F ina nc ia l Serv i c e s hel d that the A DE A ’ s l anguage pros cribi ng disc ri m i nati on “beca use of” age req uir es th e plainti ffto pro ve at tr i althatag e was the but- f or cause ofthe advers e e m plo ym ent acti on. 557 U.S
. 16 7, 17 6 (20 09 ). W e fo llow ed th e Su p re m e C o u rt ’s le ad in Se rwatka v. Rockwel l Aut om at i on, Inc. by n oting th e A D A ’s an al o g o us l an g ua ge l i k ewi se r equi r es pl aint i ff s be arthe ult i m ate burden o fper suasi on t o show bu t-for c ausation. 591 F.3d 957, 962 (7th Cir. 2010). Bec au se s um m ary j ud gm en t i s des i g ne d t o de te r m i ne if “th e e vid en c e is s u c h th ata re as on ab le jur y c ou ld re turn ave rdi ct forthe nonm oving par ty, ” Ande rs on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U.S
. 24 2, 24 8 ( 1986 ) , o ur pos t- G ross case s no w r equi re pl ai nti ff s in A DE A cases to show evi dence thatco uld s up porta j ury ver dictthatag e was a b u t
- f o rc a u s e o fth e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o na tth e s u mm ar y ju d g m en t s ta ge . Se e, e . g. , Ba rt on v. Z im m er, Inc. , 66 2 F. 3d 448, 45 5- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 2011)
. Our si ste r ci rcui ts h av e d on e th e s am e. S e e, e . g. , Tusin g v . D es M o ines Indep. Cm ty. Sch. D is t. , 639 F.3d 504, 51 4-15 (8th C ir. 2011); M ora v. Jac ks on M e m ’ l Fu nd, 59 7 F
. 3d 1 20 1, 1203

- 04 ( 10th C ir. 20 10 ); Sc hul e rv. Pr i ceWat e rhous eCoope rs, LL P , 59 5 F.3 d 37 0, 37 6 ( D .C . C ir. 20 10 ); Kel ly v . M os e r, Pat t e rs on and She r i dan, LL P , 348 F. A p p ’x 746, 749-50 (3d C ir. 2009).8 N o. 11

- 3754 Acc o r ding l y, we s i mi l a r l y exte nd Se rwatka ’ s AD A causa ti o n r equi r ementa t t rialt o the s um m ary j udg m en t stage , m ean ing Flei sh m an m us t p rod uc e evide nc e pe rm i tting a j ury to i nfe r hi s a ge w as a but-forcause o f hi s te r m i na ti o n. W e pa us e t o n o t e tha tthi s h o l dinga c c o r ds wi th ot h er r ecentdi scr i m i nati on a nd em plo ym ent c ase s that proce ed differ entl y a t the sum m ar y j u d gm ent s tag e. F i r st, c o ns ti tu ti o na lc l ai m s, s ucha s F i r stAm endm en t re tal i ati on ca ses , co nti nue to pro ceed und er the M t. He al t hy b u rd en -sh i ftin g fra m ew or k. G re enev. D oruff , 66 0 F. 3d 975, 97 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( ci ti ng M t
. He a l t h y Bd. of E duc. v. D oyle, 429 U .S. 274, 28 7 (1 97 7)); see also G ross , 557 U .S. a t 179 n. 6 ( noting the deci si on does notal ter co ns ti tu ti o na lc as es tha t pr o ce ed und er M t
. He al t hy ). Se cond, we have c ontinued t o apply the M cD onnell D o ug la s b u rd en- shi fti ng fra m ew or k in sum m ar y j ud gm ent c ase s that pr oce ed und erthe i nd i re ct m ethod of pr o o f, a que st i o n G ross ex p licit ly leftop en . Se e, e . g. , Se ns ke v. Sy ba se, 5 88 F
. 3d 501, 506- 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ci ting M cDonne l l D ougl as Corp. v. Gre en , 411 U
. S. 792 (1973)) ( applying G ross ’ s but- f orcausa ti on s tandard thr ough the M cD o nn ell D o ug la s fra m ew or k); see also G ross , 55 7 U .S. at 1 75 n .2 (lea vin g q u es tio nop en ); Sh elley v . Geren , 66 6 F
. 3d 59 9, 607-08 ( 9th Ci r . 2 01 2) ( “n o th i ngi n G ross ove rrule d our case s uti l i zi ng [ the M cDonne l l D o uglas ] fra m ew or k t o d ec id e s u m m ar y jud gm en t m ot ion s in A D E A cases” ).N o. 11

- 3754 9 B. A D EA Claim H av in g e st ab lish ed Fleis h m an ’s b u rd en , w e t u r n to h is c l ai m s. W i th r espectto the A DE A cl ai m , Fl ei shm an p oin ts to a few p iec es o fe vid en c e h e a rg u es sa tis fy h is burden: I zzo ’ s com m ent that J ohnson w anted to “g et hi m to o, ” I zzo ’ s o ffero fr etirem ent a nd se ver ance a t the o nset ofFl eis h m an’ s m edi calprobl em s, and ol der law ye rs ’ d ep ar tu re from C on tin en ta l. I n 200 6, I zzo r evi ew ed Fl ei shm an’ s 2 005 perfor m ance re vi ew i n w h ich Johnson gav e F l ei shm an a sco re that m ade hi m i nel i gibl e fora ra i se. I zzo r esponded to Fl ei sh m an ’ s di spl eas ure by sta ti ng “he y, she’ s o ut to ge t m e t oo ,” re fer rin g t o Jo h n so n . Th is c om m en t fa lls consi derably s hor t o fev i dencingdi scr i m i nati on . Fi rs t, thi s co m m ent i s a m bi guous; i t i s devo i d of an y ind i cati on that J ohnson’ s a l l ege d m otivati ons w er e a ge re l ated. W e r ea ch ed a ne ar l y i den ti ca lc o nc l us i o n in a p re vio u s c as e. Se eM i l l s v. Fi rs tFe d. Sa v. & Lo an Ass ’ n o f Belvid ere, 8 3 F
. 3d 83 3, 8 41 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( ab se nt age - re l ate d context, st ate m ent that m anage m ent was “out to g et [ the tw o ol dest e m plo yee s] ” a l one w as not d irect eviden ce of discrim ination eve n i f th e plaintiff i n t e r p r e t e d i ta s a g e mo t i v a t e d )
. T h e a mb i g u i ty a l o ne obviates this com m en t’s rel evan ce, but m or e o ver, i sol ate d com m ents ar e no t pr obat i ve ofdi scr i m i nati on unle ss they ar e “ conte m pora neous w i th th e d i schar ge o rc au sa l l y r el at ed to the di sc ha r g e dec i si o n- m ak i ng proce ss. ” G le ason v. M es irow Fin. , Inc. , 118 F .3d 11 34, 11 40 ( 7th Cir. 19 97 )
. Thi s co m m en t i s no t co ntem p oran eou s beca us e it cam e ten m ont hs before10 N o. 11

- 3754 Fle ish m an ’s t er m in at ion
. S ee M arkel v. Bd
. of Regents o f U n i v. o f Wis. Sys. , 2 7 6 F
. 3 d 9 0 6 , 9 1 0

- 1 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( t wo m ont hs b efo r e te r m i na ti o n n o t co nt em p oran eou s); Ken ne dy v. Schoe nb e rg, Fis he r& Ne wm an, Lt d. , 14 0 F
. 3d 716, 72 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( fi ve m onths not conte m pora neous)
. M or e i m port antl y, there is no co nnecti on be tw een i t a nd the ter m i nati on deci si on. Fl ei shm an fai l s t o ex p l a i nh ow th is c om m en t re lat es to C on tin en ta l’s d ec isi o ns , whenthe r ec o r d r efl ec ts a c l ear, c au sa l l y c o nne ct ed ch ain o f ev en ts be g i nning wi th H us ni k ’ s and othe rs ’ co m pla i nts about Fl ei shm an’ s work, l ead in g t o I zz o ’ s inv es ti g ati ons i nt o the se c o nc erns , a nd e ndi ng w i th I zzo’s d ec isio n t o te rm in at e F l ei shm an f or in ad eq u at e p er for m an c e. SeeM arshallv. A m . Hosp. Ass’ n , 157 F .3 d 5 20, 526 ( 7th Cir. 1998) (requ iring plaintiff t o c o n n e c tn o n c o n t e mpo r a n e o u s c o mme n t s t o th e e mp l o y e r ’ s d e c i s i o n )
. F i n a l l y, e v e ni fJ o h n s o n ’ s c o mm en t i ndi ca te s sh e ha rbo r s ag e-rel at ed an i m us , s he di d n o tde c i de to fi r e F l e i s hma n; I z z o di d. And a no nde ci si o nm ak er ’ s an i m us i s no t ev i den ce tha t th e em p loyer’ s act io n s w ere on ac cou ntof th e plaintiff’s ag e. M etzger v. Il l. StatePo li ce, 519 F.3d 6 7 7, 682 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); D avis , 36 8 F
. 3d at 789. W i th r espectto the l ast p oint, F le is h m an argue s un d er the ca t’s paw theory th atJoh n so n ’s a n im u s a s a n on d ec isio n m ak er p ro x im at ely ca u se d Izzo ’s t e rm in at ion
. Se ege ne ral ly M ar t i no v . M C I C om m c’ns Se rvs . , Inc. , 574 F
. 3d 44 7, 45 2 ( 7th Cir. 2009 ) ( expla i ni ng the cat ’ s p aw theo ry )
. Fl ei shm an l i m i ts thi s a r g um en t to o ne c o nc l us o r y s en te nc e, a nd he pre sents no f acts supporting hi s theor y that J ohnson i nfl ue nc ed th e te r m i na ti o n.N o. 11

- 3754 11

Flei sh m an disappointi ngly m akes the disi ngenu ous as se r- 2 ti on that C o n tin en ta l “ b a d g er ed ” an d “c o n tin u o u sly ” at te m p ted to gethim to ret ir e. To the c ontrary, Flei shm an only te sti fie d to this s ingle convers ati on in 200 4. Flei shm an res pon ded to the quest ion “[ is ther e] anything besi des [ the 2004 ret i re m en tconve rs at i on] ” that“m ake s you bel i eve that[ I zz o] d iscrim ina ted ag ain st y o u ” b y say ing “[t] ha t’ s all I can rec all r i g h tn o w [ ; ] I ’ v e h a d o th e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s , b u tth e y d o n ’ tc o me t o m e rig htno w. ” Th i s depo s i t i on t es t i m ony does no t sup p or t cou nsel’s assertio ns. N ext, Fl ei shm an ar gues I zzo at tem pt ed to “c oer ce” h im to ret ire . Fle i s h m an gro u n d s th is a rg u m en t in h is 2 00 4 c on ve rs at ion w ith Izzo w h er e, inth e m id d le o f F l e i s hma n’ s med i c a l t r e a t men t s , I z z o s po k e to Fl ei shm an abo ut hi s decl i ni ng num ber s a nd as ked Fl i eshm an i fhe c onsi dered r eti re m ent. I zzo pro m i sed 2 he would r ecei ve seve ra nce i fhe d ecided to do s o. Li ke th e p re vio u s co m m en t, h ow ev er, th is c on ve rs at ionis unconnected to a desi re to r em ove Fl eis h m an bec ause of his age. A f ar m o r e l ikely exp lanation i s Flei sh m an ’s f o r m er l y a dequa te wor kfel lo ffc o ns i der abl y a t th e ti m e o fhi s m edic altr eat m ents, and I zzo , co ncer ned F l ei shm a n c o ul d n o l o ng e rh a nd l e the wo r k l o a d, i nfo rm ed hi m t hat r eti re m ent woul d com e with seve ran ce p ay. N otw ithst an di ng, over tw o years p assed betw een th is sing le com m en t and Fl eishm an ’s term i nati on. Thi s l apse in ti m e obvi ate s a ny co nnecti on between the com m ent a n d d ischarge wh en the re i s a n i nterve n i ng, l ega lr eas on forthe ter m i nati on

— th e externalco m pla i nts t o I zzo and Fl ei shm an’ s inade-12 N o. 11

- 3754 qu at e p er for m an c e. SeeGeie r v. M edtro n ic, Inc. , 99 F. 3d 238, 24 2 (7th C i r. 19 96) ( com m ents urging em plo yee to “have al lthe ki ds yo u w oul d l i ke[ ] between spring, sum m er, and f al l ” l acke d “causaln ex us” t o the t er m i nati on be cause i t was m ade a fullye arbefor e the te rm inati on in a s ett i n g u nrel ate d to the ul ti m ate gr avam en o f th e te r m i na ti o n)
. M o r eo ve r, “ sug g es ti o n[ s] o fr eti r ement do[ ] notr i se to the l eve lo fdi re ct evi dence ofag e di scri m i nati on” w hen ther e i s a n al ternati ve expla nation for th e e m p loy m en t a c tio n . Kani f f v. Allst at eIns . Co. , 121 F. 3d 258, 26 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( re ti rem en t offer ed as alt er n at ive to te rm in at ion fo r im p ro p er co n d u c t); see also Pit as iv. Gar t nerGrp. , 18 4 F
. 3d 709, 71 4- 15 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “W hat wo u ld you thi nk i fwe gave yo u ear l y r eti re m ent, w i th so m e e xtra co m pensati on be cause ofyo ur a ge?” offer ed as an al ternati ve to l aying pl ai nti ffo ffwas notdiscrim inatory). H ere, I zzo offered Fleishm an severance , h e de c l i ne d, F l e i s hma n c o nt i nu e d t o wo rk, oth er em p lo y e es bega n com p lainin g abou t his pe rform an c e, an d th en Izzo te rm in at ed h im be c a u se of h is perfor m ance. Li ke th e otherco m m ent, thi s doe s no t cre ate any i nfe re nce that Continental fire d Fl ei shm an because o fhi s a ge. Fi nal l y, Fl ei shm an curs or ily m enti ons a patt er n ofag e disc ri m i nati on. Thi s a rgum ent i s o ste nsibl y r el ate d to a p age in his state m en t of facts th at no tes ten l aw yers be twe enf o r tya nd s ixty- fi ve a r e “n o w go ne fr o m the Chi ca g o o ffi ce . ” F l ei sh m anwai ve d thi s ar g um en t because he “ fail[e d] t o devel op the f actualbas i s o f[ the] cl ai m o n appealand, i nstea d, m er el y dra w s a nd r el i esN o. 11

- 3754 13

W e decide thi s c as e underthe AD A s t anda rds pr i or t o the 3 A m er ic a n s w ith D isa b ili tie s A ctA m en d m en ts A ct(“A D A A A ” ), Pub

. L . 110- 325, 122 St at. 3553 ( 2008) , because Co nti nental t e r m i n a t e d F l e i sh m a n ’s e m p l o y m e n tb e fo r e th e A D A A A ’s en actm en t. S eeF re dri cks en v. U ni t ed Parce l Serv. , C o. , 581 F. 3d 516, 5 2 1 n . 1 (7t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. W e n ot e , h owe ve r, the ADAAA b r oa den ed th e A D A ’s p ro te ct io n b y su p er se d in g p o rt io n s o f Sutt on v. U ni t ed A i r Li nes , Inc. , 52 7U. S
. 4 7 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) a nd Toyot a M ot or M a nu f a c t ur i ngv . Wi l l i a ms , 534 U.S. 184 ( 2002) to, i nteral ia, inclu d e a w id er ra ng e of im p airm en ts that su b stan tially lim it a (co n tin u ed ...) up on ba re co ncl usi ons. ” M uh ich v. C o m m ission er, 23 8 F
. 3d 860 , 8 6 4 n . 1 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )
. No t wi ths t a nd i ng, i tl a cks m er i t, as nothin g connects thes e e m plo yee s’ departur es to proh ibite d conduct ( orev en ev i dence Conti nental playe d a r ol e in the deci si on)
. One w oul d expect o l der empl o y ee s to na tu r al l y l ea ve the i r em pl o y er s. W i th o ut m o r e, thi s o cc ur r en ce i s no t ev i den ce o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n.
C . A D A Claim N ext, we turn t o the AD A cla i m . The A DA pro hibi ts empl o y er s fr o m t ak i nga dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o ns aga i ns tthe i re mpl o y e e s b e c a us e o fa di s ab i l i ty . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2112 ( a)
. To s ucceed, Fl ei sh m an m ust be di sabl ed un d er th e A D A , w hich de fine s d isabil ity as: “(A ) a physi cal orm entali m pai rm ent that s ubstanti al l y l i m i ts one or m ore m aj or l ife activities ofsuc h ind ivi d ua l; ( B ) a re cor d ofsuch a n i m pai rm ent; o r ( C) be i ng r ega rd ed as ha ving su ch an im p airm en t.” 42 U .S .C . § 12102 (1). 314 N o. 11

- 3754

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 m ajo r life a ct iv ity
. S ee Pub. L. 11 0- 32 5 § I I ( a) ( 4)

- ( 6)
. Acc or di ngl y, al though Fl ei s hm an not es he was una bl e t o dri ve duri ng th e period leadi ng up t o h i s t er m i nat i on, dri vi ng was no t c ons i der ed a m aj or l i fe ac t i vi ty pr i or to the adopt i on ofthe A D A A A
. Wi nsl ey v. C ookC nty. , 5 6 3 F .3d 59 8 , 60 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ). A nd in a n y e v en t, F leishm an d id no t raise this arg u m en t in the d istrict cou rt. F l e i s hma n a r g ue s tha t hi s a ne ur i s m c o ns t i tutes a d isa b ility an d , ad d itio n ally , C on tin en ta l reg a rd ed h im as havi ng a disabi l i ty.

1. S u b stan ti ally Lim it s a M ajor Life A ctivi ty Fle ish m an h as n otp ro d u c ed ev id en c e th ath is aneuri sm l im its a m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty. In hi s m oti on be f o r e th e di st ric t co ur t, F l ei sh m anmer ely c i te d the W i k i pedi a ar ti cl e o n a ne ur i sms a nd c o nclud ed tha t th e “ability t o functi on a nd l i ve i s ce rt ai nl y am aj orl i fe functio n .” A s b ot hth e d i st ric t c ou rtan d Fleis h m an ’s a p p ellate briefrecogn ize, how ever, d e t e rm ining w he th er a pla i nti ffhas a di sabil i ty i s m ade on an ind i vi du al i zed ba si s. Thu s, the e xi st en ce o fa medi ca lcond it i o n a l o ne is in su fficie n t t o s at isfy th e A D A
. Toyot a M ot orM f g. v . Wi l l i a ms , 534 U
. S. 184, 198 ( 2 0 0 2 ) (holdin g “[i ]t i s insu ffi ci ent for i nd i vi du al s . . . to m er el y s ubm i t e vi dence of a me di c a ldi a g no s i s o fa n i mpa i r men t
. . . . [ T] he ADA re quir es . . . ev i dence thatthe extent ofthe l i m i tat i on ca us ed bythe i ri m pai r m en t in t erm s o fthe i ro wn ex p er ien c e is su b st an tia l” (a l t er at ion s o m itt ed )), sup ersededN o. 11

- 3754 15 i n p ar tb y P u b . L . 110 -32 5, 12 2 S ta t. 35 53 (20 08 ); B urnett v . L F WInc. , 472 F
. 3d 471, 48 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Ti c ev. Ct r . A re a Tra n s p . A u t h. , 247 F. 3d 506, 51 3 ( 3d Cir

. 20 01) ( “I t i s wel l

- es tabl i sh ed th ata pa r ticulardi agno si s, no m att erhow seve re (o r seve re - soundingto the l ayperso n), st anding alon e, i s no t s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh

‘ disabi l i ty. ’ Rather, the i nquir y a s t o disabi l i ty i s t o be m ad e on a case-by-cas e basis.”) ( alterations om itted ))
. Fl ei shm an cannotr el y o n “the nam e o r diagnosi s o f the i m pai rm en t”; r ather, he m ust s how “the effect ofthat i m p a irm en t o n ” h im
. B urne tt, 472 F
. 3d at 483
. Under th is s t a n d ar d , Fleis h m an ’s b ar e a ss er tio nth ath is aneuri sm co nsti tutes a disabi l i ty i s insuffi ci ent. For the fi r s tt i me o n a pp e a l, F l e i s hma n no w conte nd s that the aneurism l i m i ted hi s abi l i ty to w or k. H e c ite s h is 2 00 5 p er for m an c e re vie w d ow n g r ad in g h is sc or e b ec au se h e m iss ed tim e. Fle ish m an w aiv ed th is c laim be c a u s e h e o n ly a rg u ed th e a n eu ris m affe c te d h is abi l i ty t o “ fun c t i o n a nd l i v e ” i n the di s t r i c tc o ur t
. N otw i thsta nd i ng, Fl ei shm an t esti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that his an eu rism only prev en ted him from w orking for p orti ons of20 03, 20 04, and ear l y 2 005, bu t hi s co nd i ti on d id n otp re ve n t h im from w or kin g fro m Ju n e 2 00 5 u n til h is t er m in at ion in Ja n u ar y 2 0 07 . A n d alth ou gh h e c ou ld n ot dri ve du ring that peri od, Fl ei shm an sta ted in h is deposi ti on tha t he “went to al lthe sta tus ca l l s, [ he] d i d [ h i s ] r e g u l a rj o b , [ a n d h e ] d i d n ’ ta s kf o ra n y a c c o mm od ations” i n 20 05 or 2006. A lth o ug h Fleishm an ’s m edi calprobl em s for m er l y a ffecte d his abi l i ty to w or k, they d i d not, byhi s o w n adm i ssi on, l i m i t hi s abi l i ty16 N o. 11

- 3754 to w ork nearly eighteen m o nt hs l ead ing up to his term i nati on. Thus, Fl ei shm an di d not hav e a di sabil i ty at th e t im e o f h is t er m in at ion
. SeePa tt erson v. Ch i. Ass’ n f orRe t ar de d Ci t ize ns , 15 0 F
. 3d 719 , 726 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) (“P att er son cannot ar gue that s he i s s ubstanti al ly re str i cted in h er abi l i ty to w or k a s a te acher, . . . bec ause th e u n d isp u te d ev id en c e e st ab lish es th atim m ed iat ely up on herte rm i nati on . . . Patt er son w as and has c on tin u ed to be reg u lar ly em p loy ed a s a t ea c h er w ith in th e C hicag o Pu bli c Sch ool syste m . ”).

2. R ega r ded as D i sable d Fl ei shm an al so conte nd s Continentalr ega rded h i m as havi ng a disabi l i ty. T o succeed o n thi s cl ai m , he m ust es ta b lish th at eit h er (1) “th e em p loy er m ist ak en ly bel i eve [ d] that [ h e] ha[ d] a n i m pai rm ent that s ubs t a n t i a l l y l i mi t s a maj o rl i fe a c t i v i t y , ” o r ( 2 ) “ th e e mp loyer m istaken ly believe[d] tha t an e x istin g i m p airm en t, w h ich is n otac tu ally lim itin g, d oe s s u b s ta n tia lly l i m i t am aj orl i fe a cti vi ty. ” B r u n k e rv . S c h w a n ’s Ho me Se r v. , Inc . , 58 3 F
. 3d 1004, 100 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 09)
. Fl ei shm an su gge sts thatConti nentaldi d not be l i eve he cou ld w o r kb e c a us e , a ft e rt we nty y e a r s o fs uc c e s s fule mpl oym ent, i ts em plo yee s b eg an cr i ti ci zi ng hi s workand I zzo ask ed hi m i fhe c onsi dered r eti re m ent. A s th e di str i ct cour t e xplaine d , the evi dence ov er w hel m i ngl y s ugges ts othe rwis e

— at al ltim es du ring and afterhi s m edi cal l eave Conti nentalco nti n u ed to e m plo y F l ei shm an as a w or ker s’ co m pensati on a tto rneyand, i n f act, tr ansferre dN o. 11

- 3754 17 hi m to the new l y c re ate d M aj orCl ai m s Un i t desi gned to ha ndl e hi g h- va l ue c as es . F l ei sh m ani s co r r ec t th atthe evi dence suggest s I zzo and others knew Fl ei shm an ha d m edi ca lpr o bl ems r el at ed to his an eu r i sm. But no th i ngs ug g es ts tha t any o ne a t C onti ne nt altho ught th is c ond iti on su bsta nt ial ly affected his abil ity to earn a l i vi ng. Even am i dst the perfor m ance c om pla in ts, I zzo pl ac ed F l eis hm ano n a pe r f o r m an ce i m pr o ve m en t pl an . T his m easu re ind icates that, althou gh Fl eishm an ’s w or k was sufferi ng, I zzo bel i eve d he w as capabl e o f perfor m i ng adequately.

3. A cco m m od ation C laim On app ea l, Fl ei shm an beg i ns weavi ng ar gum ents i nto h is b rie f th atC on tin en ta l failed to ac c om m od at e h is d isa b ility . 42 U .S.C . § 12 1 1 2 ( b )(5) (A ) (“t h e t er m d isc rim inated ag ai nst aqual i fi ed i nd i vi du al on the bas i s o fdi sabi l i ty i ncl ud es

— not m aking r eas onabl e a ccom m odati ons t o the kno wn ph y s i c a lo rme nt a ll i mi t a t i o ns o f an o ther w i se quali fi ed in divi du alwith adi sabi l i ty” ( i nternalquotat i ons om i tte d))

. A gain, bec ause Fl ei shm an i s not disabl ed, thi s cl ai m f ai l s. Bu t m or e im port antl y, he f ai l ed to r ai se i t in hi s co m pla i nt, l et alo n e h is bri ef inth e d ist ric t c ou rt . A n d fu r th er, “th e s ta n d ar d ru le is that a pl ai nti ffm ust no rm al l y r equest an accom m odati on be f or e l i abi l i ty und erthe A DA at taches , ” Jov anovic v. Em e rs on Ele c. Co. , 201 F.3d 894 , 899 (7th C ir. 2000), an d Fleis h m an n ev er d id so .18 N o. 11

- 3754 D . I nd i r ectEvi den ce o fD i scr i m i nati on I n the di st r i ctc o ur t, F l ei sh m ana ckno wl edged tha t he co ul d s ur vi ve s um m ary j udg m en t un dere i th erthe dir ect ori nd i re ct m ethod s bef or e a sse rt i ng “[ w ] e s eekto est ablish i ntenti onaldi scr i m inati on under the di re ct m etho d of p ro of. ” On appeal, he no w as ser ts a theor y o f i nd i re ct di scr i m i na tio n (atl eas t under the AD EA ) , wh i ch i s waive d. In r es po ndi ngt o Co nt i ne nt al ’ s wai ve ra r g um ents, Fl ei shm an m i sund er sta nd s the waiv erdoctr i ne. Fl ei shm an fi rs t a sse rt s he prese nted every thi ng o n w hi ch hi s a pp el l ate br i efr el i es i n hi s Northern Dis tr i ct o fI l l i nois L o ca lRul e 56
. 1 st at emento ff ac ts
. Butthe waiver do ct r i ne c ha r g es l i ti g an ts wi thr ai singthe a r g um ents they prese nt o n appeali n the di str i ct c ourt, notj ust the f acts o n w hi ch thei r appell ate ar gum ents w i l lr el y. See B us . Sys . Eng’g, Inc . v. Int ’ l Bus
. M ac h. Corp. , 54 7 F
. 3d 88 2, 8 89 n. 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. F l ei sh m an ’ s po si ti o ns ar e l ega lar gum ents urgin g us to deny s um m ar y j ud gm e n t, an d th u s, w av ier ap p lies

. Se eal s o We b e rv. U nivs. R ese a rc h Ass’n, Inc. , 62 1 F
. 3d 589, 59 2- 93 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( W eb erwai ve d pr o o fb y the di r ec t m etho d b y f ai l i ng to d evelop the argu m en t in the d istri ct cou rt). I n l igh t o fthes e i ssues , Fl ei shm an urg es us to co nsi der hi s ar g um en ts
. Al tho ugh F l ei sh m ani s co r r ec t th atthe w ai verr ule i s prudenti aland not j uri sdic ti onal, it ser ves i m port an t inter est s. By r equi ring l i ti gants to ra i s e the i r a r g ume nt s i n the di s t r i c t c o ur t, we , f or ex ampl e, pr ev en t par ti es fr o m g et ting two bi tes at th e apple by ra i si ng tw o dist i nct ar gum ents bef or e e ach cour t, i ncenti vi ze th e pr ese ntati on o fwell

- re aso nedN o. 11

- 3754 19

m otions in th e d istri ct c ou rt, and avoid u nn eces sary cos ts to the cour ts and par ti es by avo i ding appeal s that co ul d ha ve b ee n de ci ded be l ow . T hus, we en f o r ce the rul e unl ess the “i nter est s o fj u stic e” re quir e o ther w i se. Judgev. Q ui nn , 6 2 4 F
. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. S uch ex ampl es i nc l ude wher e “f ai l ur e to co ns i der the alle ge d err or w ou ld res u lt i na m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice ,” “the e qui ti es he av i l y pr epo nde r at e in fa vo ro fc o r r ec ting i t, ” o r “ther e was a pla i n er ro r that ser i ousl y a ffecte d th e f ai r ne ss , i nt eg r i ty, o rpub l i c r epu ta tion o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Se e 36 C.J
. S. Fe deralCourt s § 45 8 (footn otes om itted ) (com p il ing case s). I n a nye v e nt, a b r i e fr e v i e w o fF l e i s hma n’ s ADEA i ndi r ec t ev i den ce c l ai m rev ea l s i t l ac k s m er i t. The i nd i re ct m etho d ofpro ofpro cee d s under the M cD onnell D o ug la s fra m ew or k, wh i ch r equ ire s Fl ei shm an to sho w th at( 1) “ he was meet i nghi s empl o y er ’ s l eg i ti m at e ex pec ta ti o ns , ” ( 2) “ he s uffer ed an a d ve r se e m pl o y m en t acti on, ” and (3) “si m i l ar l y si tuate d, substa nti al l y y ounger em plo yee s were tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y.” Franzon iv. Har t m arx Corp. , 300 F.3d 76 7, 77 1-7 2 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) . I f succes sful, the defe nd ant m ust pro vi de a l egi ti m ate n on d isc rim in at or y re as on for th e a c tio n . Id. The pla i nti ffthen m ust s how thatther e i s a n i ssue off act w h et h e r th is re as on is p re te x tu al. Id. Rel yi ng o n a c ase in w hi ch w e a ssum ed ar guendo thatthe pla i nti ffhad est abl i shed a pri m a f aci e case because he co uld notes tabli sh pret ex t, Flei sh m an rem arkab ly s k ips th is entire fi rs t s tep

— assert ing h e “m ay skip ove r the initialbu rden-shi fting ofthe i nd i re ct m etho d and fo cus o n th e que st i o n o fpr et ex t. ” Buthi s cl ai m f ai l s be ca use he20 N o. 11

- 3754 cannot ski p that ste p. M or eov er, ther e i s no ev i dence th at yo unger em plo yee s were tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y. I n hi s s t a t e men to ff a c t s h e r e l i e s o n hi s f a s t er case - cl osur e r ate than M ar cy Singer - Ruiz and Ste ve Trot to, but both thes e ind i vi du als w er e cl ose to Fl ei shm an i n age ( f or ty- f our and for ty- ei ght re specti vel y) , and theyr ecei ved hi gherev al uati on s cor es du ring the ti m e i n questi on. Thu s, they w er e n either si m i l ar l y s i tuate d nor substa nti al l y y ounger . Fo r al lo f these r eas ons, thi s a rgum ent fai l s.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r easons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n.

10- 18- 12