# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rgued J uly7, 20 0 9 Deci ded J uly15 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 4042 R O S S L . NE L S O N, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. U N IT E D P A R C E L SE R V IC E , I N C ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or thern Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s , Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 06 C 142 8 R ebec ca R . Pallm eyer, Judg e . OR D ER Ross N el son, a 52- yea r- ol d bl ack m an, sued U ni ted Par celS er vi ce forfi ring hi m o n the b asi s o fhi s r ace and age i n vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VI Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct a nd the A ge D isc rim in at ion A c t. See 42 U . S. C. §§ 2000 e et seq . and 29 U . S. C. §§ 621 et seq . The di str i ct c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n ti nf a v o ro fU P S a n d w e a ffi r m. N el son had been a part - ti m e e m plo yee o fU PS a nd a m em bero fTeam ste rs Local70 5 U n ion for fiv e y ea rs w h en in th e s u m m er of 20 05 , he be c am e a se as on al p ac ka ge ca r d riv er . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w ith Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 4042 Page 2

UPS’ s su m m ers ea so n runs fr o m Ea st erthr o ugh the F r i daya fte rLabo rDa y, a nd UPS t e mp o r a r i l y p r o mo t e s p a r t - t i me e mp l o y e e s d u r i n gi t s s u mme rs e a s o nt o c o v e rf o rfu l l
- t i me d riv er s w h o a re on va c at ion . N els on tra in ed for t w o w ee ks be for e w or kin g a s a d riv er in th e N ap ervil le Cen ter, bu t after com p lai nin g tha t he d id n ot hav e the opp ortu nity to w ork en ou gh hou rs, he suc ceed ed i n tran sferring to U PS’s facil ity in P alatine, I ll inois, w he re K ry st inK ra u se w as th e m an ag er . W h ile w or kin g a t th e P ala tin e C en te r, N els on reg u lar ly m isd eliv er ed p ac ka ge s, an d U P S su p er vis or s h ad to rid e w ith h im n in e t im es to h elp h im im p ro ve h is p er for m an c e. A t the end ofthe sum m erse aso n, Krause m et w i th N el son and a uni on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d i n f o r me d N e l s o nth a tU P S w a s t r a n s fe r r i n gh i m b a c kt o a p a r t - t i me posi ti on. Nels on be l i eve d that the co l l ecti ve-bar gaini ng ag re em ent e nti tl ed hi m to se ni or i ty as a dri ver, and so duri ng the m eet i ng, Krause and the uni on r epres entat i ve cal l ed Tom H aefke, the U PS Di str i ct Labo r Rel ati ons M anage r, f orcl ar i fi cati on. Haefke tol d N el son th ath is p ar t-t im e p os itio nw as th e o n ly on e a va ilab le t o h im , an d if h e re fu se d it, he w ou ld be t er m i na te d. Nel so n n o ne th el es s i ns i st ed o n s en i o r i tya nd the ful l
- ti m e po si ti o n; he r e fus e d the p a r t - t i me j o b . As p r e di c t e d, Ha e fk e t e r mi na t e d h i m. Ne l s o n the n fi l e d a g r i ev an ce wi thhi s uni o n c l ai m i ngtha t UPS fi r ed hi m o n the b as i s o fhi s ag e an d r ac e, b ut th e u n ion u ltim at ely d ec id ed n otto p u rs u e th e g rie va n c e. N els on th en su ed U P S for ag e a n d rac ial d isc rim in at ion . N els on cla im ed th atw h ile w or king atthe Pal atine f aci l i ty, Krause re fer re d to hi m as “Ol d Si l ver ” nea rly e ver y o ther day and thathi s di vi si on m anage r, W ar i ng Lest er, i nfo rm ed hi m thatKrause and other su p er vis or s h ad sa id h e w as to o old an d slow for th e job. A c c or d in g t o N els on, L es te r to ld hi m thatthe supervi sor ’ s r em ar ks w er e m oti vate d by r aci sm . Nels on a l so al l ege d that a fter th e me e t i n gw h e r e h e w a s t o l d h e w o u l d b e t e r mi n a t e d i fh e d i d n o ta c c e p th i s p a r t - t i me j ob, he o verhear d K ra use s ay, “we ar e g oing to fi re thatni gge r today. ” U PS fi l ed f or su m m ar y jud gm en t a n d inc lu d ed affid av its p ro vid ed by L es te r d isp u tin g th es e c laim s. K ra use, wh o had si nce l eft UP S and coul d not be l oca ted, di d not pro vi de an affi davi t. The dis tr i ct j ud ge gr anted U PS’ s m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent. The j ud ge concl ud ed that N el son had fa i l ed to sho w di scr i m i nati on under e i therthe dir ect ori nd i re ct m eth od of p roof. Th e j ud ge reason ed thatK rau se’s all eged com m en ts regard ing N elson’s age were i nsuffi ci ent t o cre ate a “co nvi nci ng m osa i c” s up port i ng a ci rcum sta nti alcas e o f di sc r i m i na ti o n un derthe di r ec t m etho d, a nd tha t Kra us e’ s al l eg ed co m m en t th ats he i ntended to “fi re thatni gge r today” was not re l evantbec ause i t was utte re d afterU PS had deci ded to fi re N el son. As f orthe i nd i re ct c ase , the j ud ge concl ud ed that N el son had fa i l ed to i denti fy a ny si m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee s who w er e t re ate d m or e f avo rabl y.N o. 08
- 4042 Page 3

O n ap p eal N elson argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt shou ld h ave con side red K rau se’s co m m en ts abo uthi s ag e as di r ec t ev i den ce o fdi sc r i m i na to r y i nt en t r athe rtha n pa r t o fthe “mos ai c” e st ab l i sh inga c i r cumst an ti alc as e. T o make a no nc i r cumst an ti alc as e unde rthe dir ect m etho d ofpro of, N el son w oul d have t o prese nt ev i dence w hi ch, i fbel i eve d by a j ury, woul d pr o ve tha t UPS ac te d wi thdi sc r i m i na to r y i nt en t: a n a dm i ss i o n o r“ ne ara dm i ss i o n” th atth e e m p loy er ’s d ec isio nw as d isc rim in at or y. See Nagle v . Vill. o f C a lum et P a rk, 55 4 F . 3d 1106 , 1114 (7th Cir. 2009); Hem sworth v. Q uotes m ith.c om , Inc. , 476 F.3d 487, 490-91 (7th C ir. 2007 ) . But Krause’ s co m m ents that N el son w as too o l d and too sl ow, as w el las r epeate d re fer ences to hi m as “Ol d Si l ver, ” a re nothi ng m or e than “st ra y r em ar ks” di sco nnected fro m the deci si on t o ter m i nate N el son and do not const i tute an adm i ssi on that he w as fi re d b ec au se of h is a ge . SeeHem sworth , 47 6 F . 3d at49 1. N el son al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have co nsi dered Krause’ s a l l ege d com m ent that s he was go i ng to “fi re thatni gge r today” as di re ct, nonci rcum sta nti alpro of th athe was fi r ed ba se d o n h i s r ac e. Al th o ugh Nel so n i s co r r ec t th atwe ca n c o ns i derthe com m en t even thou gh i t w as m ad e after the d ecision to return N elson to p art-tim e w ork h ad be en m ad e, se e Nagle, 55 4 F . 3d at 1115 , i t i s the only ev i den ce o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n o n the basi s o fr ace i n the enti re r eco rd. The c om m ent, tho ugh re prehensibl e i fi nd eed i t was m ade , pr o ve s o nl y tha t Kra us e r efer r ed to Nel so n us i nga r ac i ste pi th eta nd tha t sh e perso nal l y harbor ed ra ci alani m us; i t doe s no t a l one prove thatU PS t er m i nated N el son b ec au se of h is ra c e. See Hem sw o rth, 47 6 F . 3d at4 91 . T he c o m m en t was no t m ade b y the actualdeci si onm ake r, LaborRel ati ons M anage r H aefke, norwas i t in any w ay att ributed or i mp u t e d t o h i m. N el son al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n fi nd i ng tha t he f ai l ed to m ake a pr i m a- f ac i e ca se f o rdi sc r i m i na ti o n un derthe i ndi r ec t m etho d o fpr o o f . He ar g ue s th atUPS ne ve ro ffer ed a l eg i ti m at e, no ndi sc r i m i na to r y r ea so n t o r etur n h i m t o pa r t- ti m e wor k . But U P S h ad to offe r a n on d isc rim in at or y re as on on ly after N el son m ade out a pri m a- f aci e ca se, w h ich N els on n ev er d id . See A nto netti v . Abb o tt La bs. , 563 F.3d 58 7, 59 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). In or der t o m ake o ut a pri m a- f aci e ca se f ordi scr i m i nati on, N el son m ust s how thathe ( 1) i s a m embe ro fa pr o te ct ed cl as s; ( 2) i s qua l i fi ed f o rthe po si ti o n; ( 3) was r ej ec te d f o rthe posi ti on; and ( 4) the posi ti on was gi ven t o som eone wh o w as outsi de ofhi s pro tect ed cl ass an d w as sim ilar ly or les s q u alifie d th an h im . Jac ks on v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 55 2 F . 3d 619, 62 2 ( 7th Cir . 20 09) ( ci ti ng M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U.S . 79 2 ( 1973 ) ) . As the dist ri ct cou rt point ed out, N elson offered n o eviden ce to satisfy step f ou r. A lthou gh at sum m ary j ud gm en t N elson su bm itted the n am es of several em p loyees w hom he claim ed w ere y o ung ertha n h i m a nd r et aine d a fte rs ea so na le m pl o y m en t, UPS pr o vi ded pr o o ftha t no ne o ftho se e m pl o y ee s wer e r et aine d a s per m an en t dr i ve r s. Nel so n s ti l lc anno t po i ntt o a ny UPS empl o y ee s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed to hi m who r ec eive d b et te rt r ea tmenttha n h e di d, a ndN o. 08
- 4042 Page 4

thus he f ai l ed to make o uta n indi r ec t ca se f o rr ac i alo ra g e di sc r i m i na ti o n. Fi nal l y, the parti es devote co nsi derabl e a tte nti on t o ar gui ng wh etherN el son had o b t a i ne d s e ni o r i ty u nd e rthe c o l l e c t i v e -b a r g a i ninga g r e e men ta nd wa s the r e f o r e “ de mot e d” w hen U PS r etur ned him to part - ti m e work . Beca use we hol d that UPS i s e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent in any case , we need not add re ss that questi on her e. AFFI RM ED .