Opinion ID: 788401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Respondent has refused to hire me on at least ten (10) different occasions.

Text: 11 II. I believe I am being discriminated against based on my race, because I am more than qualified for the positions I have applied for. 12 III.B. I have spoken with other black persons who have applied with Respondent and been rejected as well. Moreover, white persons have been selected for the jobs I have applied for. 13 III.C. On one occasion the job I applied for was in Terre Haute, however, Respondent had me drive about an hour further to Vincennes to go through the application process for no apparent reason. 14 (Supp.App. at 31) (emphases added). 15 McGoffney argues that this language indicates that she was claiming repeated discrimination with respect to multiple job applications, creating a reasonable inference that the entry of 7-7-00 as the date of alleged discrimination was simply mistaken. 16 As we have previously explained, limiting a Title VII plaintiff to claims included in her EEOC charge serves the dual purpose of affording the EEOC and the employer an opportunity to settle the dispute through conference, conciliation, and persuasion, and of giving the employe[r] some warning of the conduct about which the employee is aggrieved. Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.1994). McGoffney's vague allegations regarding positions and jobs for which she had applied were insufficient to place the EEOC or FSSA on notice of the particular job applications to which she was referring. She made no mention of a specific employment action occurring any time within the year 1999, nor did she mention the individuals involved or provide specific facts that would indicate that she was referring to her fourth job application, submitted in October 1999. 17 Accordingly, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment with respect to this application. B. July 2000 and February 2001 Applications 18 The district court correctly found that McGoffney had not satisfied her burden of creating a triable issue as to whether FSSA's proffered reasons for rejecting her July 2000 and February 2001 applications were pretextual. Although McGoffney challenges this ruling, none of the arguments she presses on appeal was raised below. 19 FSSA also presents a number of arguments to this Court that it did not raise below. As we have explained on numerous occasions, the requirement that parties may raise on appeal only issues which have been presented to the district court maintains the efficiency, fairness, and integrity of the judicial system for all parties. Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. Atl. Trading Co., Inc., 381 F.3d 717, 728 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Boyers v. Texaco Refining & Mktg., Inc., 848 F.2d 809, 812 (7th Cir.1988)). Accordingly, we decline to consider the arguments of either party raised for the first time here.