The H onorab le Ro ber t L. M il le r, J r. ofthe N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 12

- 2893 R ENEE S. M AJO RS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. G ENERAL E LE CT R I C C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 10- C- 1731

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judge

.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 14, 2013

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 16, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, H A MI L T ON, C ir cuit Judg e, a nd M IL LER, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  M IL LER, D i s t rictJudg e . R e n e e S
. Maj o r s , a l o n g - t i me empl oyee atGe ne r alEl ec tr i c Company ’ s Bl o o m i ng to n, I ndi an a pl an t, fi l ed su i t al l eg i ng th at GE vi o l at ed the A m er i cans with Dis abi l i ti es A ct, 42 U .S.C
. § 1210 1 ets eq . ,2 N o. 12

- 2893

a nd T i t l e V I Io fthe Ci v i lR i g ht s A cto f1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 000e ets eq . , w he n it den ied h er tem p orary an d perm anent pos i ti ons to w hic h s h e was o ther w i se enti tl ed unde rthe s en i o r i ty
-ba se d b i ddi ngpr o ce du re the pl an t used t o fi l lvac ant pos i ti ons. M s. M aj or s a l so al l ege d th at G E r e ta liat ed ag ain st h er , in vio lat ion of T itle V II, f orfil i ng Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on ch arges of d is c r im ination w he n sh e w as d en ied overti me ho ur s a nd the o pp o r t un i t y t o wo r k“ l a c ko fwor k” Fr i days, and that GE co nstr ucti vel y di schar ge d her w hen she el ecte d to re ti re . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted GE s ummar y j ud g men to n a l lc l a i ms. M s . Maj o r s a pp ea ls th at d ec isio n w ith th e e x c ep tio n o fh er T itle V II d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUND M s. M aj or s work ed at GE ’ s Bl oo m i ngto n pla nt fo r 32 yea rs . I n 2000 , she suffer ed a w or k- re l ate d inj ury to h er right sh ou lder th at left her lim ited to li fti ng no m ore t h a n tw en ty p ou nd s and prec lud ed her from w ork ab o ve s ho ul derl ev elwi thhe rr i g hta r m . The r es tr i ct i o ns w er e co nsi dered te m pora ry atfi rs t, but acco rdi ng to he rme di ca lfi l e m aint aine d b y GE, the r es tr i ct i o ns l ate r w er e dete rm i ned to be per m anent. Th e Bl o o mi ng t o n GE pl a ntmanu f a c t ur e s s i de

-b y - s i de r e fr i g e r a t o r s . T h e w o r k f o r c e d r o p p e d f r o m 3 , 0 0 0 e mplo yee s in 2000 to 750- 800 em plo yee s in 2009
. A co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em en t be tw een GE and the uni on g over ns the te rm s and condit i ons ofem plo ym ent for th e Bl o o m i ng to n pl an t ho ur l y e m pl o y ee s, i nc l udi ng M s. M aj or s. Th e C B A r equi re s that v acant tem pora ryo rN o. 12

- 2893 3 perm anent pos i ti ons be a w ar ded to the m ostse ni or el i gibl e e m plo yee wh o bi ds on the posi ti on. The o nsi te m edi calcl i ni c, wh i ch i s o pe ra te d by a thi rd party, r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o fa j o b a wa r d. T h e c l i n i c s t a ffr e v i e ws the p o s i t i o n a nd the e mpl o y e e ’ s me di c a lfi l e t o de c i de w heth er any re str i cti ons affect the e m plo yee ’ s abi l i ty to per f o r m the po si ti on, a nd i fs o , whethe rthe r es tr i ct i o ns can be acco m m od ated

. Th e cli nic staff inform s G E ’s h u m an res ou r c e s d ep ar tm en t w h et h er th e e m p loy ee is m edi cal l y qual i fi ed f orthe posi ti on. The posi ti on g oes to th e n ex t m os t s en ior b id d er if th e e m p loy ee isn ’t m ed ic a l l y qua l i fi e d. M s. M aj o r s he l d s ev er aldi ff erentpo si ti o ns a t th e pla nt, i ncl ud i ng a stint as a pu rchas ed m ate ri alaudit or fro m Decem ber20 00 to J une 20 01
. S he worke d as a qua l i tyc o nt r o li ns pec to ri n Ass embl y, pe r f o r m i ng qua l i t y a ud i t s o n r e fr i g e r a t o r s , fr o m F e b r ua r y 20 03 unti lherr eti re m ent in Octobe r 2009
. InM ay 20 09 , M s. M ajors w as th e s en ior e ligib le b id d er for a tem p or ar y pu rc h as ed m at er ial au d ito r p os iti o n. A pur ch ased m at er i ala udi to ri ns pec ts , t es ts , a nd au d its a va rie ty of p u rc h as ed co m p o n en ts an d int er n ally m an uf ac tu r ed par ts f o rc o nf o r m an ce to en g i ne er i ng s p e c i fi c a t i o n s a n d qu a l i t y s t a n d a r d s b e f o r e th e c o mponent o r part i s r el eas ed to pro du cti on o r shi pm ent. The posi tion re quir es “i nter m i tte nt m ove m ent o fheav y obj ects , ” which i s the f ocus o fthi s di spute. Lead Occup ati onalH eal th N urse ToniKri sto ffr evi ew ed the j ob awar d a nd no te d tha t M s. M aj or s ha d pe r m an en t l i fting r es tr i ct i o ns a nd the j o b des cr i pti o n r equi r ed i nt er m i tt en t4 N o. 12

- 2893

m o ve m en t o fhe av y o bj ect s. M s. Kr i st o ffdi sc us se d the po s i t i o n’ s l i ft i ngr e qu i r e men t s wi th Lab o rR e s o urces M an ag erLi nda S chne i dera nd d is co ve r ed th atl i fting m or e than twenty pounds w as an es senti alfuncti on o f the pos i ti on. Consequentl y, M s. Kri sto ffdeter m i ned M s. M aj o r s was no t m edi ca l l y qua l i fi ed f o rtha t po si ti o n. M s. M aj or s l et m anage m ent know thatshe bel i eve d sh e could p er f o r m the a udi to rpo si ti o n. GE fur th eri nvest i gat ed th e pos i ti on’ s r equi re m ents and w hether M s . Maj o r s ’ s l i f t i ngr e s t r i c t i o ns c o ul d b e a c c o mm o da t e d. A gr o up tha t i nc lud ed M s. Kr i st o ff, M s. S chne i der, a nd an er gono m i c te chnic alspeci al i st reviewed the audit or j o b des cri p ti o n a nd v i si te d the wor ka r ea . The g r o up di sc us se d the po si ti o n’ s r equi r emen ts wi tha c ur r en t audito r and the m anage r of the a ud i tor s, bo th o fwh om co nfi r m ed th at li ft i ngpa r ts a nd mat er i alwei g hi ng m or e than twenty pounds w as an es senti alfuncti on o f the pos i ti on. M s. S chnei der a nd the ergo n om i c speci al i st w ei ghed obj ects the audito r had to l i ft a nd co nfi rm ed the obj ects weighed m or e tha n t w en ty pound s. A nurse p ra c t itione r review ed and corroborated M s. K ristoff’s concl usi on that M s. M aj or s w as n’tm edi cal l y qual i fi ed for t h e p os itio n . M s. K ris to ff an d th e e rg on om ic speci al i st disc ussed the positio n’s l i fti ng r equi re m ents w i th M s. M aj or s, wh o sugge ste d that a m ate ri alhandle r c ou ld d o th e l i f t i n g. M s. M ajors te st ified in h er d ep os iti o n tha t she rep ea te dl y t o l d M s. Kr i st o fftha t th e li fti ng restrictions no longer li m ited h er. GE deci ded M s. M aj or s co uldn’ t per f or m an e sse nti al fun ction of the a ud itor p ositi on be cau se of her per-N o. 12

- 2893 5

m an en t l i ftingr es tr i cti o ns , a nd the c o m pan y g av e th e j o b to th e ne xt m o st se ni o r el i g ibl e bi dder

. M s. M aj ors fi l ed a c harg e o fdi scr i m i nati on with the EE OC on M ay 22, 2009 al l eging she w as denie d the t em pora ryaudit or po si ti o n b ec au se o fhe rdi sabi l i ty( i n v i o l at i o n ofthe A D A ) an d her sex ( in viol ation of Title V I I ). M s . Maj o r s c l a i ms tha ta s a r e s ul to ffi l i ngh e rEE OC ch arge, sh e w as d en ied overtim e hou rs an d t h e op p ortuni ty to w ork on “l ack ofwork” Fr i days. A “l ack of w or k” day o c c u rs w hen no pr oducti on i s s cheduled at the pl ant a nd few em p loy ees ar e s cheduled t o w or k. M s. M aj ors em p ha sizes the differen ce b e t w een her overti m e ho ur s wor k ed an d “l ac k o f wor k ” F r i day assi g nm ents com pared to tho se of three o therqual i ty contr ol i nspector s a t the pl ant a n d h er r epl acem ent. In 200 9, GE o ffer ed a sp ecialea rl y r eti re m ent pr ogr am thatr equir ed e ligibl e e m plo yee s t o el ect to parti ci pate b y A ugust 3 1, 20 09. M s. M ajors cl ai m s that s eve n days bef or e the deadl i ne, sho rt l y a fterr etur ni ng fro m her m o th er ’ s fune r al, s he c ho se t o pa r ti cipate i n the prog ra m and r eti re i n N ove m ber20 09 du e t o the di scr i m i na ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n. I n Oct ober, after sh e ha d elected to retire bu t b e fore her re ti re m ent b ega n, M s. M aj or s a pp l i ed f orand, as th e se ni or e l i g ibl e bi dder, was a war ded a per m an en t au di to rpo si ti o n. M s. Kr i st o ffa g ain r ev i ewe d the aw ar d and confi rm ed w i th the audit orsuperv i sor that the p o s i t i o n’ s l i ft i ngr e qu i r e men t s h adn’ tc ha ng e d. M s. K ris to ff d et er m in ed M s. M ajors w as n ’t m ed ica lly quali fi ed f orthe audito r posi ti on, and the j ob w ent t o th e nex t m ost sen ior eli gible bid d er.6 N o. 12

- 2893 M s. M aj or s fi l ed a s eco nd charge o fdi scr i m i nati on on M arch 30, 2010 all eging th at sh e w as d en ied t h e perm an en t au di to rposi ti o n b ec au se o fhe rdi sabi l i tya nd sex. M s. M aj or s a l so al l ege d ret al i ati on a nd co nstr ucti ve d isc harg e. M s. M aj or s fi l ed sui t, al l eging tha t bynot awar di nghe re i th erth e te m po r ary o rpe r m an en t audito r posi ti on, GE di scr i m i nated ag ai nst he r i n vi ol at i o n o fthe ADA a nd T i t l e V I I
. Ms. Maj o r s cla i med GE re tal i ate d against he r, vi ol ating T itle VI I, bydenyi ng her ove rt i m e ho urs and the chance to work Frid ays that we r e “ l a c ko fw or k” da y s . Ms. Maj o r s a l s o a l l e g e d G E co ns truct i ve l y disch ar g ed he rwhens he r et i r ed. The d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d G E su m m ar y jud gm en t a s t o a ll o fM s. M aj o r s’ s cl ai m s, a nd M s. M aj o r s appe al s th e dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on w i th the excepti on of her T i t l e V I Id i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.

II. S TANDARD OF R EVIE W We r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n ts u mm ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . Goetzkev. Fe r r o Corp. , 28 0 F
. 3d 766, 77 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. S ummar y j ud g men ti s a pp r opri ate i f“ the r e i s n o g e nu i ne di s pu t e a s t o a nyma t e ri al f act. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56. A l though intent and cre dibi l i ty ar e o ften c riti cali ssues i n em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on case s, no speci alsum m ar y j ud gm ent s tandard appli es t o s u c h ca se s. Al ex a n d e r v . Wi s c o n s i n Dep ’ t o f He a l t h & Family S e r v. , 2 6 3 F
. 3 d 6 7 3 , 68 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. In a n e mplo ym ent disc ri m i nati on case , as i n any case , “w e m ust c onst rue al l f acts and dr aw al l re aso nabl e i nfe re nc es in th e ligh t m o s t f a vo ra b le t o th e n on m ov in g p ar ty .”N o. 12

- 2893 7 G o etzkev. Fe r r o Corp. , 280 F.3d at77 4; Hauge r ud v. Am ery S ch. D is t. , 2 59 F
. 3d 67 8, 6 89 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. S um m ary j u d gm en t is ap p ro p ri a t e if th e n on m ov in g p ar ty “fa ils to m ake a showing suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the exi ste nce ofan e l em ent e sse nti al t o th at party ’ s ca se, and on w h ich th a t p ar ty w ill bea r th e b u rd en of p ro of a t t ria l.” Ell i s v. C C A o

f Ten ne s s e eLL C, 65 0 F
. 3d 640, 64 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu o t i ng C elotex C orp. v. Ca tret t, 477 U
. S. 317, 322 (1986)).

III
. D I S CU S S I ON

A
. AD A D i s cr i m i nat i on M s. M ajors firstco n te n d s t h e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p er ly gr anted sum m ar y jud gm ent o n hercl ai m thatGE di scri m i nated ag ai nst he r w hen she w asn’ t pr om ote d to a purchas ed m ate ri alaudi torp os iti on due to herper m an e n two r k r e s t r i c t i o n s . T h e A D A p r o s c r ib e s a n e mp loy er from “ d i sc rim in at [in g] a ga in st a q u alifie d ind ivi du alo n the basi s o fdi sabi l i ty” in j ob appli cati on pro cedures and in the hi ring or advancem ent of em plo yee s. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 21 12( a)
. Depend i ng o n the i ssues r ai sed by a s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on, an AD A p l ai nti ffm ust i den t i fy a g e nu i ne i s s ue o fma t e r i a lf a c ta s t o wh e ther ( 1) sh e i s di sabl ed; ( 2) sh e i s ab l e to perform the ess e nt i a l fun c t i o ns o f the j o b e i the r wi th o r wi tho utr eas o nab l e a c c o mm oda t i o n; a nd ( 3 ) s he s uffe r e d a n a dve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n be c au se of h er d isa b ility

. P o vey v. City of

Je f f e rs onvi l l e, Ind. , 69 7 F
. 3d 61 9, 62 2 ( 7th Cir. 20 12 ). M s. M ajors arg u es th at sh e w a s d isa b led w ith in a l lth r e e d e fi n i t i o n s o fd i s ab i l i ty unde rth e AD A.8 N o. 12

- 2893

Th e di s t r i c tc ou r tc i t e d Se r e dny jv. Be ve r ly He a l t hc a r e, LLC, 656 1 F. 3 d 5 4 0, 555 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ I nd e e d, the i nabi l i t y t o do he avy l i ft i ng i s no ta s ubs t ant i al l i m i tation a s c om par ed t o the a v er a g e p er so n .”); Z ahura nce v. Val l ey Packagi ng Indus. , Inc. , 397 F. App’ x 24 6, 24 8 ( 7th Ci r. 201 0) ( l i ft i ng r es t ri c t i on ofno m or e tha n th irty -fiv e p ou nd s on a n o ccasio na l ba sis and tw en ty p o u n d s o n a r eg u la r b a sis p ri o r t o am en d m e n t s w a s in su ffic ie n t to est a b lis h a su b sta n tia l lim ita t i o n to a m ajo r li fe a ct iv ity ); M ays v. Pri ncipi, 30 1 F .3d 86 6 , 86 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 2 ), abr ogat ed on othergrou n d s b y EE O C v. Un i t ed A i rl i nes , Inc. , 69 3 F
. 3d 7 60 (7th C i r. 20 12 ) ( t enpound l i ft i ng r es t ri c t i on is n o t a d isa b ili ty ). D i sabi l i tyi s defi ne d a s “( A) a phy si ca lo rment ali m p airm en t tha t sub stan tially l im its one or m ore m aj or l ife acti vi ti es of [th e] indi vi du al ; ( B) a r eco rd o fsuch a n i m pa irm ent; o r ( C) be i ng r ega rded as havi ng such a n i mpa i r men t
. ” 42 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 1 )
. Ms. Maj o r s a ppli ed f orand w as denie d the purchase d m ateri al a ud i t o rp o s i t i o ns i n 2 0 0 9 , s o the a men de d ADA a pp li es to M s. M aj ors’s al legations. Lifting i s a m aj or l ife a c ti v i t y u nd e rt o da y ’ s l a w. 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 2 ) ( A) ; ADA A m endm e nt s Ac to f2 0 0 8 , P ub

. L. No
. 1 1 0

- 3 2 5 , 1 2 2 S t at. 35 53 ( 20 08 )
. Re l y i ngo n pr e- amendmentc ase law , the 1 dist r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d tha ta p hy s i c a li mpa i r men tthat re sul ted i n a pe rm an ent tw enty pound l i fti ng r est ri cti on didn’tsubst anti al l y l i m i t M s. M ajors’s l i fti ng ab i l i ty. M s. M aj o r s ar g ue s th atthe a m en dm en ts b r o ade ne d the sc op e o f th e A D A ’s d efin itio n of d isa b ilit y, so w e s h ou ld disr ega rd pre

- am endm ent pr ecedent and rec onsider w hethera perm anent tw enty pound lift i ng r est ri cti on is a s u b stan tial li m itation. A t her d ep ositi on, how ever,N o. 12

- 2893 9 M s. M aj or s t est i fi ed that she wasn’tl i m i ted by the tw enty p ound li fti ng r est ri cti on, and i n hersum m ar y j ud gm ent r esponse , sh e c onceded thatthe l i fti ng r est ri ct i o n di dn ’ ta pp l y t o h e r . We do n’ tn e e d t o de c i de w hetherM s. M aj or s h as a disabi l i ty, tho ugh, bec ause ther e was no iss u e of fa ct a s t o w hetherM s. M aj or s was a qu al i fi ed i nd i vi du al, enti tl i ng GE to s um m ar y j ud gme n to n th e A D A c l a i m. A qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al u n d er the A DA i s a per son w i th a disabi l i ty w ho i s abl e t o perf or m the essen ti al fu n c tio n s o f th e jo b eith er w ith or w ith ou t re as on ab le ac c om m od at ion . 42 U .S.C . § 12 11 1(8 ); s e e also Ll oyd v. Sw if ty Transp., I nc. , 552 F.3d 594 , 601 (7th C ir. 2009). M s. M aj or s c on tend s s he was a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al because she coul d l i ft obj ects we ighing m or e than twe nty po unds with r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n, b ut GE f ai l ed to a cc o m m o dat e he rr es tr i ct i o n. Fir st, “[t]o d et er m in e w h et h er a j ob fu n c tio n is es se n tia l, we l o o kt o the e mpl o y e r ’ s j ud g men t, wr i t t e n j o b de s c ri pti o ns , the a m ou nt o ft i m e spe nto n the func ti o n, a nd the ex p e r i e n c e o f th os e w h o p re vio u sly or c u rre n tly h old the pos iti on. ” Rooney v . Koch Ai r, LL C, 41 0 F
. 3d 376, 38 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ci ti ng 2 9 C
. F. R. § 1630
. 2( n)( 3) )
. GE as s e r t e d tha tl i ft i ngo bj e c t s we i g hingo v e rt we nty p o un ds i s a n ess enti alfuncti on o fthe audito r p os iti on. W hen M s. M aj ors exp ressed her beliefthat she cou ld p erform th e a u d ito r p os itio n, G E ca re fu lly ev alu at ed th e p os iti on’ s l i fti ng r equi re m ents. The audi tor j ob descri pti on r equi r es “ i nt er m itte ntmove m en t o fhe av y o bj ec ts , ” an d an em plo yee wh o hel d the purchase d m ate ri alaudit or10 N o. 12

- 2893

M s. M ajo rs h a sn’ t ar gued on app eal thatG E, t o prov ide a 2 rea son ab le ac c o m m o d a tion , ha d to “try an d see” if s he cou ld pe r f or m the purc ha s e d mat e r i a l a udi t orj ob de s pi t e h e r m e dical reco rd s. po si ti o n a nd the mana g ero fthe oth er s ho l di ngthe posi ti on bo th co nfi rm ed that l i fti ng par ts and m at er i al wei g hi ngo ver tw en typo unds i s ane ss en ti alpa r t o fthe j ob . G E ’s la b or r es ou rc es m an ag er an d an erg on om ic te c h ni calspeci al i st w ei ghed obj ects a pu rchas ed m ate
ri alaud ito r w oul d be r equi re d to l i ft, such a s co m pressor s a nd bo xes o fscr ew s, and verifie d that the o bj ects w ei ghed m or e tha n t w enty pound s. A se cond nurse re vi ew ed and confi rm ed M s. Kri sto ff’ s co ncl usi on that M s. M ajors w a s n ’ t m ed ica lly q u alifie d for th e p os it i o n. We a g r e e wi th the di s t r i c tc o ur ttha tl i ft i ngobj ects weighi ng m or e than twenty pounds is an es senti al func ti o n o fthe pur ch as ed m at er i ala udi to rpo si ti o n. A s a r esul t o fM s. M aj or s’ s per m anent r est ri cti on pro hibi ti ng herfro m l i fti ng m or e than twenty pounds, M s. M aj or s co uldn’ t per f or m an ess enti alfuncti on o f th e au d itor p ositi on w ithou t acco m m od ation. M s. M aj ors bears the bu rd en o f e stab li sh ing tha t she cou ld p erform th e es se nt i alfunc ti o ns o fthe po si tio n wi tho rwi th o ut re aso nabl e a ccom m odati on, and can’ t m eetthi s bur den i fthe o nl y a cc o m m o dat i o ns s ug g es te d wer e unr ea so nab le. G ratz l v. O

ffice o f C hief Ju dg es of 12 th, 18 th, 19 th, & 22nd Judicial C ir cuits , 601 F.3d 674 , 680 (7th C ir. 2010). The onl y a ccom m odatio n M s. M aj or s pro posed was to ha ve a mate r i alha nd ler l i ft th e he av y o bj ec ts f o rhe r . To 2 have anothe r em plo yee per f or m a posi ti on’ s e sse nti alN o. 12

- 2893 11

C ircu m stan ces m igh t exist w he n em p loy ees w o r k ing in 3 team s are abl e t o shar e duties am ong them se lves , s o thats uch sh a r in g m ig h t b e a for m o f re a so n a b le ac co m m o d a tio n . S ee M i l ler v . Il l i nois D ep’ tof Trans p. , 64 3 F .3d 190 , 19 9-20 0 (7th Cir. 2011)
. That i s not t od ay’ s cas e. functi on, and to a cer ta in extent per f or m the j ob f or th e empl o y ee , i s no t a r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n. Cochr um v. O l d B en Coal Co. , 102 F.3d 908 , 912 (7th C ir. 1996 ) ( em plo yee ’ s s ugges ted acc om m odati on of hir i ng a he l per to per f o r m an es se nt i al func ti o n o f th e j o b, the ove rhea d w or k r equi re d b y th e posi ti on, was not a r easonabl e a ccom m odati on)
. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct cour t that a m ate ri alhandle r doi ng the heavyl i fti ng f or M s. M aj o r s was n’ t a r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n a nd s o i s n ’ tr e q u i r e d u n d e rth e AD A. G ratz l v. O ffice o f C h ief 3 Judges , 60 1 F
. 3d at 681. M s. M aj or s has n’tm et her burden ofes tabl i shi ng tha t s he co uld per f or m the p u rc h ase d m ate ri alaudit orposi ti on with a r eas onabl e a ccom m odati on. S he hasn’ t pointed to ev i dence su fficient to al l ow a fac t-fin d er to d ec id e th at sh e is a qu alifie d in d ivid u al; w i th out thi s e l em ent, sum m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate f o rh e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. Ms
. Maj o r s fr a me s h e r a r g u me n t a s a f a i l u r e t o a c c o mm od ate claim , all eging th at G E f a il ed to provid e her a re aso n able acco m m odati on. S he ar gues that GE had the b urde n to pro ve that her propos ed acco m m odati on ofano therem plo yee ’ s doing the heavy li fti ng would be anundu e hard sh i p o n the b us i ne ss . Thi s ar g um en t ign or es th at th is re c or d w on ’t a llow a fin d in g t h at sh e is a quali fi ed i nd i vi du al

. A n A DA pla i nti ff can es tabli sh12 N o. 12

- 2893

The am en dm ents to the A D A cl ari fie d that e m ployers 4 needn’ t provide reas onab le acc om m od ati on to a “r egarded a s ” di s a bl e d i nd i vi dua l

. 42 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 0 1 ( h)

. Be f or e the a m e nd

m ents , the st atute w as si le nt, and w e had n’ t res olved w h et her suc h a d u t y e xisted f or “reg ard ed as” d isab led ind iv id u als. Pow ers v. US F H ol l and, Inc. , 667 F.3d 815, 823 n. 7 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11 )
. M s . M aj or s and GE di s put e whethe r GE had a du ty to acc o m m o d a t e M s. M ajor s ifshe h ad a “re cor d of” d isab ility because the am ended s tatute r em ains s il ent as to wh ethe r a d u t y e x i s t s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a “ r e c o r d o f ” d i s a b i l i t y . We (co n tin u ed ...) d i s c r i mi n a t i o n b y s h o win gth e emp l o y e rf a i l e d t o a c c o mm odate the em plo yee , but she fi rs t m ust est ablish that sh e is a qu alifie d in d ivid u al w i t h a d isa b ility

. Hof f m an v. C aterpill ar, Inc. , 256 F.3d 568 , 572 (7th C ir
. 2001). T h e d e fe n d a n t ha s th e b u r d e n t o p r o v e th a tth e a c c o mm o dat i o n wo ul d c r ea te a n un due ha r dsh i p o n the busi ness, but the pl ai n ti ffm ust fi rs t “ show that the acc om m od at ion [s h e ] se ek s is rea so n ab le on its fac e.” O co no m o w o c R esiden tia l P rog ram s, Inc . v. City of M ilw a uk ee, 300 F.3 d 775, 78 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( ci ti ng U S Airwa ys, Inc. v. B arnet t, 53 5 U.S
. 39 1, 40 1- 02 ( 2002 ) )
. The ac com m odati on M s. M aj or s s eek s

— anothe r perso n to per f or m an ess enti alfuncti on o fthe j ob she wants

— i s, as a m at ter of l aw , not re aso nabl e, so GE i sn’ t re quir ed to sho w the a c c o mm o da t i o n wo ul d c r e a t e a n un due har ds hi p. M s . Maj o r s h a s n’ tp o i nt e d t o e v i de nc e tha tc o ul d s up p or t a fi n d i n g t h at sh e w as a q u alifie d ind ivid u al; wi tho uttha t, she c a n’ ts ho w tha tGE f a i l e d t o p r o v i de a r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n. G ratz l v
. O ffice o f C hief 4N o. 12

- 2893 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 don’ tdec i de whe the r an em pl oye r m us tpr ovi de a r ea s onable acco m m od atio n to an ind iv i d u a l w ith a “ reco rd of” d isab ility b e c a u s e Ms
. M aj o r s c a n ’ te s t a b l i s h th a ta r e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm od ati on exi st ed. The analysi s need not proceed to whether the em ployer w as requir ed to acc om m od ate M s. M aj ors with a hypo the t i c al r ea s onabl e ac c om m odat i on. Judges , 601 F.3d at68 1 (“ T o b e e n tit l e d to a re as on ab le a c c o mm o da ti on

— an d thus t o pr o ve tha t th e defen dan t f ail ed to pro vi de such a re aso nabl e a ccom m odati on

— [ the pl ai nti ff ] has the b urd en of est abl i shi ng tha t she i s a ‘ quali fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty’ un der th e A D A
. ”). M s. M aj o r s fur th era r g ue s th atthe pr o ce ss t o de te r m i ne w hethera re aso nabl e a ccom m odati on e xi ste d w as not i n t e r a c t i v e , th a tG E fl a t l y r ej e c t e d h e rp r o p o s e d a c c o mm o dat i o n a nd di dn’ t su g g es t a co unt er - pr o po sa l, a nd that GE di dn ’ t co nsi der the use of lifting devi ces as an ac co m m o dat i o n. An i nt er ac ti ve pr o ce ss be twe enthe empl o y era nd the e m pl o y ee i s m ea nt“ to de te r m i ne th e a p p ro p ria te ac c o m m o d at ion for a qu alifie d ind ivid u al with a di sabi l i ty. ” Jac ks on v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 4 14 F.3d 806 , 813 (7th C ir. 2 005) (citing 2 9 C
. F.R. § 1630
. 2(o)( 3)). T his reco r d w ou ldn ’t al low a find ing tha t M s. M aj ors w as a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al, so wh etherthe d isc ussi on betw een GE a n d M s. M aj ors w as su ffici en tly int erac ti ve i s i m m at er i al

. M s. M aj o r s ca n’ t satisfy the s ec o nd el em ent of a di scr i m i nati on cl ai m , and GE i s e nti tl ed t o s u mma r y j u d g me n to n th a tc l a i m.14 N o. 12

- 2893

A s evidence of pretex t, M s. M aj ors contends that s he re

5 pea t edl y t ol d m ana g em en tthathe r l i ft i ng abi l i t y was no l onge r re s t ri c t ed, an d the c om pany f ai l ed t o r e- eva l uat e the perm anency ofher res tr ic ti on. M s. M aj ors rec ei ved a 12% per m ane nt par t i al i m pai rm en t ra t i ng and corr es pondi ng cash p ay m en t in 2001 w he n her w or k er’s com p en sat i o n c laim was c l os ed. If the doc t or ha s gi venane m pl oye e a pe rm ane nt w o r k r estriction an d the em p loy ee h as b een p aid w or k er’s c om pen s at i on b en efi t s bas ed o n a pe rm ane ntr es t ri c t i on, the em ployee’ s lay opini on that the res tr ic ti on should no longer ap p ly isn’t sufficient to raise a g en u ine issu e of m ater ial fact. Fi nal l y, M s. M aj or s co n tends thatGE ’ s r eas on f ornot aw ard ing her th e au d itor p ositi on w as p retex tu al. If a 5 pla i nti ffes tabl i shes a p ri m a f aci e ca se ofdi scr i m i nati on und erthe A DA , the em plo yerm ust offera l aw ful, nondi scr i m i na to r y r ea so n fo ri ts a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. Am adi o v. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 238 F.3d 9 1 9 , 9 24 (7th C ir. 2001 ). On ce a d efend an t m ee ts th is burd en, the p lai nt iff h as th e b u r d en of sh ow in g t h e p ro ffer ed rea so n is ac tu ally a p re te x t fo r d isc rim in at ion
. Id. M s. M aj o rs poi nts t o n o ev i dence thatwould al l ow a tr i ero ff act to det er m i ne tha t sh e was a qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual, s o s he hasn ’t e st ab l i sh ed a pr i m a f ac i e ca se o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. W e nee d not a dd re ss M s. M aj or s’s prete xt ar gum ent. D eLuca v. Wine r Indus. , Inc. , 53 F. 3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 1995).

B. Tit l eVIIRe t al i at i on M s. M ajor s a rgues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by g r a n t i n gs u mma r y j u d g me n to n h e r r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.N o. 12

- 2893 15

M s. M aj ors’s com plaintas se rt ed her re tal iat ion c lai m und er 6 Ti t l e V I I an d notthe AD A. Al thoughthe s t anda rds an d e l e me n t s o f r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms u n de r T i t l e VI I a n d th e ADA a re s i m i l a r, Tal anda v. KFC Nat’ l M gm t
. C o. , 140 F. 3d 1090, 1095 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98 ) , an d M s . M ajor s s hi ft s t o a n ADA r et al i at i on c l a i m i n h e r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f, w e w i l l a n a l y z e M s. M ajo r s’s c l ai m u nd erthe Ti t l e V I I r et al i at i on f ra m ewor k thats he pleaded i n her c om plaintand u nd er which the dis tr ic t c ourt a n a l y z e d h e r c l a i m. She m ai ntai ns thatafters h e fi l ed herM ay 22, 20 09 E E O C c h a r g e , GE s u bj e c t e d h e r t o r e t a l i a t i o n b y de ny i ng h er ov er tim e h ou rs an d th e o p p or tu n ity to w or k c er ta in Fr i days know n as “l ack ofwork” days. W e fi rst m us t d eterm ine th e scop e of M s. M aj ors’s re t a l i a tio n cla im
. G E arg u es th at M s. M ajors ’s c laim is 6 l i mi t e d t o GE ’ s c o nd uc tb e g i nn i ng3 0 0 da y s b e f o r e h er M ar c h 3 0, 20 10 E E O C d isc rim in at ion ch ar ge w as filed . A pla i nti ffm ust fi l e a char ge o fdi scr i m i nati on with an appr o pr i at e ag en cyb efo r e sh e ca n fi l e a l aws ui t i nv o k i ng th e prot ection s of T itl e VII
. 4 2 U .S.C. § 2000 e-5(e)( 1); Lao uini v. C LM Fr eig h t Lines, Inc. , 58 6 F
. 3d 473, 475 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. An I ndi an a pl aint i ffha s 30 0 day s fr o m the date o fthe conduct at i ssue to fi l e a n EE OC di scr i m i natio n ch ar ge . Id. ( “Ind iana is a ‘ defer r als ta te , ’ mean i ng i t has a sta te ag en c y w i th enf or cem ent powers paral l el to thos e o fthe EE OC
. ”)
. A char ge fi l ed bey ond the 3 00- d ay p er iod is u n tim ely an d ba rre d

. Na tio na l R .R . P a sseng er Corp
. v. M organ , 536 U .S. 10 1 , 1 0 9 (2 00 2). A T itle V II com pla i nt ge nera l l y i s l i m i ted to the cl aim s a sse rt ed inth e u n d er lyin g E E O C d isc rim in at ion ch ar ge . We i s s v.16 N o. 12

- 2893 Coca- Cola Bott l i ng Co. of Chi cago , 99 0 F
. 2d 33 3, 337 ( 7th C ir. 1993). M s. M aj ors cou nt ers tha t G E ’s c o n d uc t w as a p attern and practi ce, so hercl ai m isn’t l i m i ted bythe sta tute ofl i m i tat i on. A patte rn a nd prac ti ce c l ai m r equi re s pro of of d isc rim in at ion ag ai n s t a p ro te c te d gro u p , Puff e rv. All s t at eIns . Co. , 6 75 F. 3d 70 9, 7 16 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2) , b ut M s. M aj or s o ffer s no ev i dence orar gum ent t o su ggest a pro tect ed gr oup w as subj ect to dis cri m i nati on o r re tal i ati on. M s. M aj ors’s re tal i ati on cl ai m was subj ect to the 3 0 0

- da y s t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o n, a nd h e rs e c o nd EE OC charg e was fi led 311 days afterherfi rs t EEO C charg e w as fi l ed. Consequentl y, the dist ri ct c ou rtco ncl ud ed th a t M s. M aj ors’s retali ation claim w as li m ited to G E ’s con ductdur i ngthe 3 00

- daype r i o d b efo r e th e se co nd EEO C c ha r g e wa s fi l e d, i
. e . , fr o m J un e 3, 2009 f o r wa r d. W e a gr ee. A Ti tl e VI Ipl ai nti ffcan prove r eta l iat ion u nd erei ther th e d ire c t o r in d i r e c t m et h od

. N ichols v. Souther n Il li nois U niv
. -Ed w ardsvil le, 5 10 F
. 3d 772, 7 84 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The di r ec t m etho d requi r es pr o o ftha t ( 1) the e m pl o y ee e ngag ed i n statu to ri l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty; ( 2) she suffer ed ana dve r se e m ploym en t a ct i o n; a nd ( 3) a c au sa ll i nk ex ist s be tw ee n th e t w o . N ich o ls v. So uth ern Illin o is U niv .- E dw ardsvil le, 51 0 F
. 3d at 784- 85. The i nd i re ct m etho d re q u ire s p ro of th at (1 ) t h e em p loy ee en ga ge d in s ta tu to rily p rotecte d activity; ( 2) she w as m eeti n g her em p loyer’ s l e g i t i ma t e e x p e c t a t i o n s ; ( 3 ) s h e s u ffe r e d a n a d v e r s e e mp loy m en t a c tio n ; a n d (4) sh e w as tre at ed les s fa vo ra b ly than si m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo ye es w ho di d not e ngageN o. 12

- 2893 17 inst at u to rily p ro te c te d ac tiv ity
. Id

. at 785 . M s . M aj ors cl ai m s s he can prove GE r eta l i ate d against he r und er both m etho ds. T h e p ar tie s d on ’t d isp u te th at M s. M ajors en ga g e d in a p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y w h e n s h e fi l e d a c h a r g e o fd i s c r i mination w ith th e E E O C
. M s. M aj o r s c laim s her j ob p erf or m ance was r ate d as s ati sf acto ry, and that she was s ubj e c tt o a n a dv e r s e e mpl o y men ta c t i o n whe n GE denie d her ove rt i m e ho urs and the o pp or tuni ty to w or k “ l ack ofwork” Fr i days. The p ar ti es dispute w hether M s. M aj o r s has es tabl i sh ed a ca us all i nkb etwee n the prot ecte d acti vi ty and the adver se em p loym ent a cti on or offe re d ev id en c e o f sim ilar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee s. Ms
. Maj o r s fi r s tp o i n t s t o th e c l o s e n e s s i n t i me be twe enthe da te s he fi l ed th e EEOC ch arge an d the al l ege d ret aliati on. S he ar gues that she r ecei ved l ess ove rti m e ho urs and “l ack ofwork” Fr i day as si gnm ents than o therqua lity co ntro li nspector s in the pla nt fro m J une t o Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 9 , a t i me pe r i o d tha t b e g a n l e s s t han tw o w eek s a ftershe fi l ed the E E O C charg e a nd ended when sh e ret i r ed. Cl o se ne ss i n t i m e be twe enthe p ro te c te d ac tiv ity an d th e a d ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n is ev id en c e o ft h e c au sa l link be tw ee n th e t w o e ve n ts , Lan g v. Illin o is D ep’t o

f C hil dren & F a m i l y Servs. , 36 1 F
. 3d 416, 41 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) , b utt o s ur vi ve s um m ary j udg m en t, the pl aint i ffmusto ffermor e e vi den ce tha t su ppo r ts the i nfe re nce o fa causall i nk betw een the t w o eve nts than sim p ly c los e t em p or al p ro x im ity
. Tom ano vich v. C ity of Indianap olis , 457 F.3d 656 , 665 (7th C ir. 2006).18 N o. 12

- 2893 M s. M aj o r s emphas i ze s th e di ffer en ce b etwee n the ac tu alo ve r ti m e ho ur s an d “ l ac ko fwor k ” F r i day s sh e w or ked co m pared to o th eri nspector s a nd herr epl acem en t. F r o m J une thr o ug h Oc tobe r2 00 9, M s. M aj ors w or ked 1 4.6 o ver ti m e ho urs. Fo r com pari son, M s. Maj o r s ci t e s th e o v e r t i me h o u r s , fr o m th e s a me t i me peri od, o fthr ee p eople hol ding i nspectorposi ti ons: R ic k y M ay, 147.6; R od ne y I ra, 139.6; an d Ba rry T ay lor, 11 .9. H er re p lac em en t, C h er yl A b ra m , w or ke d 75 .1 ove rt i m e ho urs fro m Ju n e to October20 10. Qual i ty contr oli nspector s work ed the f ol l owing num bero f Fr i days from June to Octobe r 2009 : M s. M aj or s, thr ee; M r . M ay, fi ve ; M r . I r a, se ve n; and Mr. Ta y l o r, fi ve . Dur i ng th e s am e t i m e per i od i n 201 0, M s. M aj or s’ s r epl acem ent, M s. A bra m , worke d fo urte en Fr i days. Com pari son ofthe overt im e ho urs and “l ack ofwork” Fr i days M s. M aj or s work ed i n 200 9 t o thos e herr epl acem ent work ed the f ol l owing yea r est abl i shes onl y that M s. M aj or s was as si gned few erhour s than herr epl acem ent. M any o therf acto rs , i ncl ud i ng the l ap se i n ti m e, m igh t have ca used the dispar i ty between the num ber s. A m or e v al uabl e com p ar iso n can be m ade betw een M s . Maj o r s ’ s o v e r t i me ho ur s a nd tho s e wo r k e d b y o ther q u a l i t y c o n t r o li n s p e c t o r s i nth e p l a n td u r i n gth e s a me per i o d o ft i m e. A st ar tl i ngdi ffer en ce e m er g es a m o ng th e ov e r tim e hou rs assigned qu ali ty con trol insp ectors M r. M ay ( 147. 6) and M r. I ra (1 39 .6) and those as si gned to M s. M aj ors (14. 6) an d M r. T aylor (11. 9). M s. M aj ors had si gni fi cantlyfew ero ver ti m e ho urs than M r. M ay and M r. I ra, but h erhour s were sl i ghtl y hi gherthan M r. Tay lor’ s hou rs (14. 6 com p ared to 11. 9). M s. M aj orsN o. 12

- 2893 19

wor k ed th e fewe st“ l ac ko fwor k ” F r i day s amongthe qua l i tyc o nt r o li ns pec to r s ( th r ee c o m par ed to five a nd seve n), but that discre p ancy i s m ar gi nal

. A cal endar sho ws the r e we r e t we nty - t wo F r i da y s fr o m J un e to O ctob er 20 0 9, bu t the sum m ary j ud gm en t record doesn’ t re ve al the num bero f“l ack ofwork” Fr i days du ring tha t per i od. One q u ality co ntro li nspector w or ked m or e than twice the num b er o fFr i days M s. M aj or s work ed

— s e v e n c o mpa r e d t o three

— a n d t wo quali ty contr oli nspector s work ed two add i ti onaldays. W hen exam i ned i n conte xt, the ass ign m ent t o M s. M aj or s o fl ess o ver ti m e ho urs than two o fherco w orke rs and few er“l ack ofwork” Fr i days than thr ee of her cow or ke rs duri ng the m onths aftershe fi l ed an EE OC cha rg e d oes n’tam ount t o suffi ci ent e vi dence to su p p ort an inferen ce ofcau sation. U lti m ately, M s. M aj ors ar gu es th at th e a d ve r s e e m p loy m en t a c tio n its elf is e vidence of a causal l i nk between M s. M aj ors’s pro tect ed ac ti vi tyand the a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n, r ec ei ving less overtim e hou rs and “lack of w ork” Frid a y s . “Th ere i s no br i ght- l in e ru le a s t o the a m ount o fev i dence nece ssa ryto sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent under the di re ct m etho d,” Tom a n o v ic h v. C ity of Indianap olis , 45 7 F
. 3d at 66 5, b utM s. M aj o r s di d n’t i den ti fy e vi den ce s uffi ci en t to cre ate an i ssue off act as to w hetherthe prot ecte d acti vi ty w as th e c au se ofthe al l ege d advers e e m plo ym en t ac ti o n. Em plo yee s typi cal l y a re si m i l ar l y s i tuate d i ft h ey had the s am e s up er vi sor, were su bj ect to the s am e e m plo ym e n t st an d ar d s, an d en ga ge d in s im ilar co n d u c t. S ou th20 N o. 12

- 2893

v. Il li n o is En v’t P rot. Agency, 495 F.3d 747, 752 (7th C ir. 20 07 )
. Butthe s i m il ar l y s i tu at ed an aly si s i s fl ex ibl e, a nd the r esul t depends on any r el evantf acto rs and com m on se n se . Id. “[ S] uffi ci ent c om m onal i ti es on the keyvar i abl es betw e e n t h e plaintiffand the w ou ld-be com p arator [are re quir ed] to al l ow the ty pe ofco m pa ris on that, ta ken to ge th er w ith th e o th er p rim a fa c ie e v i d e n c e, w ou ld allo w a j ury to re ach an i nfe re nce o fdi scr i m i nati on o r re tal i ati on. ” Id. ( quoti ng H um phr i es v . C BOCS We s t, Inc . , 474 F.3d 387, 405 (7th C ir. 2007)). M s. M aj or s hel d a q ual i ty contr oli nspectorposi ti on i n 2 00 9, a nd s he a r g ue s th ata l lqua l i tycont roli nsp ec to rs in t h e B loo m in gt on p lan t w er e s im ilar ly si tuate d em plo yee s, es peci al l y her re pla cem ent, Chery l Abr am. M s. M aj o r s o ffer s no e vi den ce tha t al lthe i nspe ct o r s wer e si m i l arly s i tu at ed empl o y ee s, o rwhy he rr e pl a c e men ti n pa r t i c ul a rwa s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d. GE co nt en ds th atM s. M aj o r s was the o nl y i ns pec to rwho r epo r te d t o h er s upe r vi so r s, Ga r y Ham i l to n a nd Am i ne Kar o ud, a nd the o nl y i ns pec to ri n h ercostc en te ra nd ar ea ofthe pla nt. A ccor d ing t o GE , two qual i ty contr ol i nspector s M s. M aj or s use s a s com p ar ators ( Ric ky M ay and R odney I ra ) had differ ent j ob cl ass i fi cati ons than M s. M aj or s, Barr y Tay l or, and CherylA b ra m ; nei ther pa rty pr ese nted any evi dence abo ut the differ ence between the j ob cl ass i fi cati ons. M s. M aj or s di dn ’ t s ugg e s tth e o th e rqu a l i t y c o n t r o li ns pe c t o r s h a d th e s a me su per vi so ro ro ffera ny o th er co m m o n a tt r ibut e among the qual i ty contr olinspecto rs . M s. M aj or s has poi nted to no e vi dence, apar t fro m the j ob ti tl e, to support her conte nti on that the em plo yee s were si m i l ar l y s i tuate dN o. 12

- 2893 21

Bec aus e M s . M aj or s di dn’ te s t abl i s h a pr i m a facie c as e of 7 ret ali ati on und er e ither the direc t o r in directm ethod, w e need no tr e a c h GE’ s a r gu m e nt( tha tthe di s t r i c tc ou r tdi dn ’ ta dd re ss) tha t M s. M ajor s’ s retaliatio n cla im lack ed m erit b eca u se she d i d n ’ t offer an y ev id en ce tha t her sup erv isors, w ho w ere res pon sible f or the retaliat ory condu ct, w ere a w a re th a t sh e h a d file d an E E O C ch a rg e o f d isc ri m in a tio n . to her orthatwould allow a re aso nabl e t ri ero ff act to co n c lu d e t h at G E tre at ed oth er ins p ec to rs d iffer e n tly than M s. M aj or s. A ccor dingl y, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct cour t that M s. M aj or s’ s r eta l i at ion cl ai m can’ t s urvi ve su m m ary j ud gm en t un d er the ind irect m eth od of p roof. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatM s. M aj or s has offer ed no e vi d en c e that would al l ow her r eta l i ati on cl ai m t o s ur vi ve s um m ary j udg m ent u nd ere i th erthe d irect or ind irect m eth od of p roof. 7 M s. M aj o r s al so a ss er ts tha t th e di ffer en ce b etwee n the ho ur s wor k ed byM s. M aj o r s, he rr epl ac emen t, a nd othe r inspecto rs atthe pla nt i s e vi dence ofpre text. Ms
. Maj o r s a r g u e s th a te v i d e n c e o fp r e t e x t, w h e n c o mbi ned w i th te m pora lpro xi m i ty, i s s uffi ci ent add i ti onal ev i den ce o fc au sa ti o n t o s ur vi ve su m m ary j udg m en t un d er the d irect m eth od , and cites Th ird an d Ten th Circ u it c as e la w t o s u p p or t h er arg u m en t. Fa rrell v. P la nters Li f e s ave rs Co. , 206 F.3d 27 1, 2 8 6 (3d C ir. 20 00 ); We l l s v. Co l o r a d o Dep ’ to

f Tr ans p. , 325 F.3d 12 05, 1218 (10th C ir. 2003 )
. But M s. M aj or s di dn ’ t o ffers u ffi ci ent e vi dence to sh o w th at GE’ s pr o ffer ed r ea so ns f o rthe o ve r ti m e an d “la c k of w or k” Frid ay as sig n m e n t s w er e p re te x tu al. A22 N o. 12

- 2893 d efend an t has the bu rd en t o offer a non -discrim inatory r e a so n for th e a d ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n, typ ica lly af te rthe p l a i nt i ffe s t ab l i s he s a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o fr e t a l i atio n . N ichols v. Souther n Il li nois U n iv.-Edw ardsvil le, 51 0 F
. 3d a t 78 5. The b ur denthe n s hi fts b ac kt o the pl ainti ff, who mus t e s t ab l i s h the pr o ffe r e d r e a s o n w as p re te x tu al. Id

. Wi th r e s p e c t t o th e d i s c r e p a n c y f o u n d i n th e t i me reco r ds, GE c l ai m s th atthe CBA di r ec ts the pr o cedu re used t o di s t r ib ut e o v e r t i me ho ur s a mon gh o ur l y e mpl oyees. GE g r ou p s em p loyees w ho p erform sim il ar w ork into a cost cen ter. A ccord ing to G E , the c o s t cen ter’s su p ervisor ha s t h e discret ion to de term ine w he th er overtim e is requ ired an d th e e m p loyees w ho w il l p erform th e w o r k

. GE c l ai m s th atM s. M aj o r s’ s su per vi sor s d ecided th ato ve r ti m e an d “ l ac ko fwor k ” F r i day s we re unne c e s s a r y, a nd the y we r e t r y i ngt o co nt r o lc o s t s . GE s a y s th e C B A r e q u i r e s th a tth e d i s t r ib u t i o n o fo v e r t i me hours b e e quali zed am ong the e m plo yee s withi n a j ob cl ass i fi cati on o n the s am e s hi ft in the cos t ce nter
. A ccor ding to GE , hour l y e m plo yee s don’ t worko n a “ l ack of w ork” d ay un less the em p loye e i s broug ht i n for a spe ci fi c pur po se s ucha s pr ev en ta ti ve mai nt en an ce , a nd the Bl oo m i ngto n pla nt ex p er i enced m any “ l ack ofwork” days in 200 9. GE cl ai m s the r eas on f orthe i nconsi ste ncy i n the o verti m e as si g nm en ts was tha t M r . M aya nd M r. I ra, althou gh qu ali ty c o n trol insp ectors, had a diff e r e n tj o b c l a s s i fi c a t i o n ( 9 0 1 8 ) , wh i l e Ms
. Maj o r s a nd M r. T ay lor were both w i thi n the j ob cl ass i fi cati on 9 014. G E ’s ex p la n a t io n c o n s t it u t e s a n o n -d is crim inatoryN o. 12

- 2893 23

re aso n f orthe ove rt i m e ho u r an d “l ack ofwork” Fr i day ass i gnm ents re fl ecte d i n the ti m e r eco rds. A n em plo yer ’ s pro ffer ed non- disc ri m i natory r eas on f orthe advers e e m plo ym en t actio n i s pre textuali fi t was a lie. G ates v. Ca te rpil lar, Inc. , 5 13 F
. 3d 68 0, 6 91 ( 7th Ci r. 2 0 0 8 )
. As e v i de nc e o fp r e t e xt, Ms. Maj o r s c l a i ms GE didn’t adhere to th e C B A ov er tim e d istr ibuti on p roced ure and point s to G E ’s ti m e record s t o sup p ort her cl ai m . M s. M aj or s e m phasize s th at she t est i fi ed at he rde po s i t i o n that the p r o c e du r e p r o v i de d b y the CB A w as “n ot the w ay it ’s ev er been

. ” She argu es G E did n’t offerany evi dence abo ut the CB A o ver ti m e di str ibuti on pro cedure orthe difference between the j ob cl ass i fi cati ons. The m ostr eas onabl e infe re nce fro m these ci rcum sta nces, she cl ai m s, i s that GE denied her ove rt i m e ho urs and the o pp or tuni ty to w or k “ l ack of w or k” Fr i days be cause she fi l ed an EEO C charg e o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. G E ’s t im e record s alone d on’t p rove th at G E did n’t ab i de b y the CB A a s Ms. Maj o r s c l a i ms. GE ’ s e xp l a na ti on th at the di str ibuti on o fo ver ti m e ho urs i s e quali zed und erthe CB A am ong em plo yees withi n a j ob cl ass i fi cati on, and the quali ty contr oli nspector s with the m ost ove rt i m e ho urs h ad a di ffer ent j ob cl ass i fi cati on than M s. M ajors isn ’t p at en tly fals e. M s. M ajo r s c laim s it isn’t true, butoffers n o t hin g m ore. W hile GE did n’t offerfurtherdetai l s abou t w hy ce rt ai n i nspector s had di ffer en t j o b cl as si fi ca ti o ns , i t i s M s. M aj o r s, the no nm oving par ty, wh o m ust s et f or th suffi ci ent evid en ce to s ur v i v e s ummar y j ud g men t, a nd s he h a s o nly o ffer ed24 N o. 12

- 2893

co nc l us o r y s ta te m en ts tha t th e su m m ary j udg m en t r ec or d d oe sn ’t s u p p or t. Se eAl b i e r o v. Ci ty of Kankake e, 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir. 2001). M s. M aj ors has n’t offer ed suffi ci ent ev idence thatGE f abr i cate d i ts p r o ffe r e d n o n - d i s c r i mi n a t o r y r e a s o n f o rth e o v e r t i me and “l ack of w or k” Fr i day dist ributi on to est abl i sh pre text.

C
. C o nstru ctiv e D isch a rge Fi nal l y, M s. M aj or s conte nd s sum m ar y j ud gm ent w as in ap p ro p ria te for h er cl a im th at sh e w as co n st ru c tiv ely d i s c h a r g e d w h e n s h e r e t i r e d e a r l y d u e t o e x t r e me stress. On A ug us t 24, 2009 , M s. M aj o rs cho se to p articipate i n a sp ecial earl y retirem e n t p rogram and retir e i n Nov embe ro ftha t ye ar . The s pec i ale ar l y r eti r ement opti on was a part ofth e n at i onalCB A and w as offer ed to GE e m pl o y ee s who wer e 55 y ea r s o l d o ro l dera nd had w or ked f orGE f ortwenty- fi ve yea rs o r m or e. Eli gibl e e m plo yee s had to a pp l y forthe prog ra m by Au g us t 31
. Ms
. Maj o r s c o n t e n d s s h e w a s u n d e re x t r e me st re ss an d h er w or kin g c on d itio n s w er e in to ler ab le be ca us e sh e was de ni ed th e te m po r ary a udi to rpo si ti o n, ha d b ee n de ni ed th e o ppo r tu nityt o wor ko ve r ti m e an d

“ l a c ko fwo r k ” F r i da ys, and wa s r e qu i r e d t o de c i de w hethershe w oul d opt i n to the ear l y r eti re m ent pr ogr am w ith ind ay s o f ret u rn in g fro m h er m ot h er ’s fu n er al. M s. M aj o r s do es n’ t co nt en d, ho wev er, tha t GE ’s conduct vi ol ate d an y fed er all aw , and she doesn’ t ci te any rule o fl aw thatsa ys an em plo yercan ’t requir e a n empl o y ee t o make a de ci si o n abo uta n e ar l y r eti r ement prog ra m because the em plo yee i s und er extr em e str ess .N o. 12

- 2893 25 W e no te tha t GE’ s dec i si on nott o a war d M s. M aj o r s th e tem pora rypurchase d m ate ri alaudit orposi ti on was not the r esul t o fdisc rim i nati on a nd GE ’ s deci si on notto ass i gn addit i onalhour s t o M s. M aj or s w as not re tal i atio n. M s. M aj or s wasn’tco nstr ucti vel y di schar ged wh en s h e d e c i d e d t o r e t i r e e a r l y, a n d s u mma r y j udg m en t w as appropri ate
.
I V. C ON CL U S I ON Fo r t h e f orgoing reason s, w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s entr y o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofGE o n al lcl ai m s.

4- 16- 13