Opinion ID: 220255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Discrimination Complaints & District Court Proceedings

Text: In February 2007, Davis filed complaints with the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He alleged that Time Warner discriminated against him on the basis of his race and retaliated against him because of his comments to Cleboski about the rumors. Davis later filed a second complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC issued Davis right-to-sue letters in May 2008. In July 2008, Davis filed suit against Time Warner in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He alleged that Time Warner racially discriminated or retaliated against him when it fired him and when it changed the compensation plan upon his return, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 2000e, and sought a variety of relief, including punitive damages, reinstatement of the previous compensation plan, and managerial training. We assume arguendo that Davis's EEOC filings, some of which are absent from the record, contained his Title VII claims; Time Warner has not argued otherwise. See Sitar v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 344 F.3d 720, 726 (7th Cir.2003) (Generally, a plaintiff may not bring claims under Title VII that were not originally included in the charges made to the EEOC.). Davis and Time Warner cross-moved for summary judgment on Davis's claims. The district court concluded that there was no evidence that race was a motivating factor in Davis's termination or the changes made to the compensation plan. The district court was unable to discern whether Davis was alleging retaliation or hostile work environment claims. See Davis, 2010 WL 322748, at  ([H]e does not develop coherent arguments in connection with either.). For the sake of completeness, id., it considered whether he had amassed adequate evidence to warrant a trial on those claims. The district court concluded that he had not and granted summary judgment in Time Warner's favor. The district court denied Davis's cross-motion for summary judgment and his pending motion to strike on the merits, and denied as moot three other nondispositive motions.