Opinion ID: 2999628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Re-Hire

Text: Anders’s last substantive point is that the district court erred in dismissing his Title VII race retaliation claim. He argues that Waste Management chose not to rehire him following their acquisition of City Wide because he had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But Anders has not pointed to any direct evidence of retaliation, nor has he shown that after filing the charge only he, and not any similarly situated employee who did not file a charge, was subjected to an adverse action even though he was performing his job in a satisfactory manner. See Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Util. Div., 281 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006). Again, summary judgment was appropriate. Finally, because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Anders’s claims, we similarly find that it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); Andrews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 447 F.3d 510, 515 (7th Cir. 2006). For failing to present an argument on his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) claim, the issue is waived. 16 No. 05-3862