In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1933 LINDA BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AVANCEZ, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. No. 1:19-cv-00515-HAB — Holly A. Brady, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JANUARY 6, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 6, 2022 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and SCUDDER, Cir- cuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Linda Brooks filed a lawsuit claim- ing that her employer, Avancez, discriminated against her on the basis of her age and disability, PTSD. Avancez, on the other hand, claims that it fired her for legitimate non-discrim- inatory reasons—primarily because of threats that she made to other employees in the workplace. Because Brooks has not provided evidence that the employer’s stated reason for her 2 No. 21-1933 discharge is pretext for illegal discrimination, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment along with its de- nial of her motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I. In June 2018, Brooks began working at Avancez as a tem- porary employee assigned through an agency. She was as- signed to the third shift of something called the “console line” which had eight different stations. Brooks worked at the “Continuity and Final Inspection Station.” Her duties in- cluded testing the electronics and inspecting each console be- fore shipment to a car manufacturer for use in its production line. Brooks was the oldest assembler on the shift. On Septem- ber 26, 2018, Avancez hired Brooks as a permanent employee. Brooks’ discrimination claim is based on several incidents during her employment and surrounding her termination. We recount these incidents with facts taken in the light most favorable to Brooks, as we must during summary judgment. Taylor v. Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 482 (7th Cir. 2021). According to Brooks, shortly after being hired, she partic- ipated in a two-day orientation and training session for new employees. Brooks claims that the trainer asked all of the par- ticipants to state their names and ages, and Brooks complied. A few months later, after her initial training, on October 29, 2018, Brooks informed her team lead, Linda Chambers, that she was supposed to be, but had not been, trained on other stations. The third shift plant manager, Keith Redd, chimed in asking Chambers why Brooks was not being trained on other stations. According to Brooks’ account, Chambers responded that Brooks would not be trained on all of the eight No. 21-1933 3 workstations in her area because “they said she is too old.” R. 47 at 4, ¶26. At no point in this suit has Brooks identified the “they” of this statement. Redd immediately corrected Cham- bers’ characterization by confirming that Brooks should be trained on all other stations. Nevertheless, the next day, Brooks filed a complaint with human resources complaining of a “hostile work environment.” R. 65-9 at 9. 1 Brooks testified in her deposition that she was fully trained on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals