*1 appellants to obtain fees from the investors
for benefits conferred on the secured credi-
tors. Corp. Cf. Mars Steel v. Continental Co.,
Illinois National Bank Trust
We conclude that there is no basis for
upsetting judge’s the district fee award.
Affirmed. INDURANTE,
Jack Plaintiff-Appellant,
LOCAL INTERNATIONAL BROTH TEAMSTERS, OF
ERHOOD AFL-
CIO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-2733. Appeals, Court
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 1998.
Decided Nov. *2 personnel more stream- operation and
the lined, efficient, implement new able to and policies. review, upon that we have deter-
Based
your employment at Local
mined that
Therefore, effec-
be continued.
should not
you
longer
will no
be
tive October
Chicago,
Anthony (argued),
M.
Katherine
receiving
Prior to
employed at Local 705.
IL,
Plaintiff-Appellant.
for
request
you
your
paycheck, we
last
Feldman,
your servicing
relative to
return all files
Cornfield
J. Auerbach
Melissa
belonging to
property
In-
all
IL,
(argued),
assignment and
Peggy Hillman
Chicago,
A.
time, you will receive
At that
IN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Local 705.
for
dianapolis,
and
accrued vacation
severance.
CUDAHY,
and
EASTERBROOK
Before
your service to Local 705.
you
Thank
ROVNER,
Judges.
Circuit
agents received
day
other business
That
five
the same letter.
Judge.
Cudahy, Circuit
10, 1996,
Lo-
sued the
May
Indurante
On
the
of
Ligurotis,
head
May
Daniel
of
cal,
was fired on account
alleging that he
plaintiff, Jack
hired the
Local
Teamsters
§§
and Italian
age,
29 U.S.C.
his
see
Indurante,
the Local’s
as one of
to work
§§
heritage,
42 U.S.C.
2000e-2000e-17.
n
see
afterward, a
long
agents. Not
business
granted
Local’s motion
The district
the
overseer,
kicked
court-appointed
In-
counts.
summary judgment on both
corruption. See
for-
the Teamsters
out of
reasoning
court’s
not find the
durante did
Bhd. Team
v. International
United States
origin
respect to
national
persuasive with
(S.D.N.Y.1993).
sters,
F.Supp.
claim,
judgment on that ba-
appeals the
the
development, in June 1993
a related
sis.
Teamsters,
Carey,
Ron
of the
president
control of a trust
Local,
the
placed the Local under
Indurante was
According to the
Bhd.
Teamsters
implement
See International
program
ee.
of a
part
fired as
(N.D.Ill.
F.Supp. 513
Union
government
Local
the
ordered
mandate of
“[t]he
1993).
the
appointed Harold Burke as
Carey
...
Teamsters
trusteeship of
Local
trustee,
trustee and
Zero as assistant
house,
Gerald
Local 705
to rid Teamsters
clean
representa
McCormick as international
the Un-
corruption
permeated
John
had
which
resigned as
Answering
tive of the Teamsters.
Ligurotis reign.”
during the
ion
took
1994 and Zero
August
in
the trustee
reference to
17. As
Def.-Appellee
Br.
over;
assistant
trustee.
became
trustees’ view
suggests,
cleaning house
run
an election to
contested and won
corruption called for some-
the elimination
trusteeship concluded.
Local when the
surgical
intervention:
than a
thing more
Local
head of the
changes
as the
took over
elected
He
made wholesale
“[T]he Trustee
April
policy-making
selecting
a staff of
personnel,
views were
employees whose
confidential
7, 1994, Indurante
p.m.
on October
At
leadership
the new
compatible with that of
pay-
regular
pink
with his
slip
received
leadership had confi-
new
in whom the
came in the form
The bad
check.
news
added).
In the Lo-
(emphasis
dence.”
Zero, at
time
from
following letter
liability
account,
principal
cal’s
trustee:
running
Local as
“the
with
was his association
my mandate as Trustee
part of
As
most
liability he shared
reign,” with
705,1
required Local
am authorized
agents.
other business
Local. Includ-
operations
review
true
Local’s
counters that
personnel
Indurante
the entire
in our review is
elimi-
trusteeship
agenda under
personnel of the
system, the current
has
nation of Italian-Americans.
change
the direction of
the need
former
three of his
from
affidavits
make
submitted
intend to
We
policy
Local.
co-workers,
allege
during
by”
fire ...
animated
ille
who
the trust-
[Indurante]
management
gal
City Delphi,
made com-
eeship members
bias. Venters
According
brief,
confirm such a bias.
ments that
In his
he
agent, about three
to one former business
summarizes
appointed
McCormick was
to his
weeks after
“whether
has
an issue of
Plaintiff
created
*3
Local,
position at
“McCormick stated
regarding pretext
part
on the
material fact
going
Italians
to be
that all the
were
fired.”
preclude
Local
to
Defendant
705 so as
agent reports:
also
This
“McCormick
stated
(emphasis
7
judgment.”
Id. at
nothing
all
but
added).
the Italians were
mobsters
appeal
indicates that
Indu-
This
on
“
Pl.-Appellant
gangsters.”
and
Br. of
A38.
relying
rante is
on
from which a
‘evidence
played
The
that McCormick
a
Local concedes
rational
the [Local]
factfinder could infer that
role in the decision to fire Indurante. Anoth-
proffered
]
lied about
its
for his
reason!
”
June,
agent
business
states: “In
er former
Univ.,
v.
dismissal.’ O’Connor DePaul
123
1993,
plans
Burke
me that
t
Trustee
told
(7th Cir.1997)
665,
(quoting
F.3d
670
Cour
”
get
were ‘to
rid of all
Italians.’
at
Biosound,
(7th
Inc.,
414,
ney v.
F.3d
undisputed
encouraged
A37. It is
that Zero
Cir.1994)).
fire
Burke to
Indurante when Burke headed
brief,
reply
a footnote
his
the Local and that
refused to
do so.
suggests
confining
that he is not
his case to
affidavit,
In a
a
union orga-
third
former
pretext.
may
observes
He
that “this Court
nizer describes a confrontation he had with
contemplate the
under
20, 1995,
February
Gerald Zero on
when
proof
appropriate.”
method
deems
Zero,
trustee,
campaigning
then still the
was
1;
Reply
Pl.-Appellant
Br. of
1 n.
id. at
cf.
to
become
elected head
and
enough.
13. True
But this footnote is not
organizer
the former
had returned to his
argument,
an
and the
comes too late in
position
a truck
driver:
reply
a
brief. See Kauthar SDN BHD v.
appeared
Zero
at
Preston [Trucking
Sternberg, No.
1998 WL
room,
Company] ... entered the drivers’
(7th
14,1998).
July
*7
Cir.
present,
where there were about 16 drivers
An
that
assertion
certain “discrimina
campaign
began passing
out
literature
tory
ought
precluded
comments alone
to have
talking
about his
slate.
I
election
told
entry
summary judgment
in this case”
him that all of
compa-
the drivers were on
appear
does
opening
brief.
ny time and that he
not
was
allowed to
n
Pl.-Appellant
Br. of
14-15. This remark
campaign
kept
talking,
office.
could be read as a claim that Indurante had
day
saying that it was
off. I
told him
enough
proceed
evidence to
trial without
Company
that the
did not want union cam-
evidence of
But the assertion is
paigning on their
He
time.
then told me
passing
made in
in the
of a
course
discussion
days
goombahs
“the
are over.”
point,
another
and it
authority
cites as
organizer
Id. at A44. This former
declared
grounds
pretext,
case decided on the
Fut
that “I and several other drivers of Italian
Case,
(7th
rell v. J.I.
descent
were offended
this remark.” Id.
1994).
perfunctory
undeveloped
A
as
(One meaning
“goombah”
is “mafioso.”
inadequate
separate
sertion is
to raise a
basis
Another is “trusted associate.” See 1 Histor-
Duckworth,
appeal.
v.
See Holleman
Dictionary
ical
Slang
American
932-33
Cir.1998);
F.3d
911-12
United
(Jonathan
ed., 1994);
Evan Lighter
New
Cusimano,
States v.
828 n.
(Robert
Dictionary
Slang
American
(7th Cir.1998);
Andreas,
cf.
ed., 1986).)
Chapman
L.
(7th Cir.1998)
(per
F.3d
cu
argue
Indurante does not
that he has
riam).
presented the sort of evidence of discrimina
tion that in itself
him to
emphasizes
entitles
take his
If
merely
case
one
jury
to a
disproving
without
the Local’s stat
proof,
proper
method of
but the
result
for firing
method,
rationale
him—evidence “that
clear under the other
we need not
person
persons
or
power
rely
with the
procedural
to ...
ignore
niceties and
Indus.,
prior
“not
See,
year
tempo-
PPG
e.g., Robinson v.
obvious.
nn. & 3
rally
F.3d
1164-65 &
related”
the termination. See 99
however,
it is
242;
In the
Kennedy,
see also
140 F.3d at
alleged
statements
(“The
not obvious
comment
made at least five
Burke,
up
and Zero add
to direct
plaintiffs
months before
termination and
(We
discriminatory intent.
assume
proof of
temporally
not
thus was
related
her dis-
admissible;
are
the statements
purported
Zero’s
charge.”). While
remark—
thought
Burke’s statement
district
goombahs
“the
over”—does
not,
nothing of this in
Local makes
but the
fewer
five months after Indu-
come
than
court.)
particular,
it is
clear
firing,
rante’s
it was
even made to em-
employ-
the comments are “related
expressly
ployees of the Local
does not
UARCO,
question.”
ment decision
*4
Huff
employment.
to
refer
(7th Cir.1997).
Inc.,
122 F.3d
employment
phrase “related to the
The
cited
are
Perhaps the
cases
distin
may simply
in
mean that
question”
decision
guishable,
law on
but the relevant case
refer,
all,
first of
to an
comments should
the
by
was not discussed
Indurante. Be
second,
decision,
the
employment
to
question
to
cause Indurante failed
brief the
type
employment decision as the
same
of
successfully
he
have
whether
could
chal
challenging.
about
plaintiff is
So comments
summary judgment
the
for
lenged
motion
if
may not
hiring
suffice
discrimination
proof,
method
the
under
direct
of
See, e.g.,
discharge.
a
the case involves
obvious,
is not
we
not
that
answer
do
decide
Electronics, 82
Fuka v. Thomson Consumer
in what follows we as
question. Therefore
lan
But
Burke,
that
comments of
sume
McCor
further,
goes
suggesting
cases
guage
other
merely
mick and Zero are
what
cases
to
indi
that the comments should refer
“stray
com
have termed
remarks’1—biased
plaintiffs employment decision. See
vidual
by
not
ments “made
the decisionmaker but
(“One
Venters,
readily
at 973
can
123 F.3d
disputed employment
to the
action.”
related
Ives
not
infer from these remarks that
O’Connor,
such, they
at 671. As
123 F.3d
inclined)
(indeed,
only
to evaluate em
willing
pretext
“may
to the
be relevant
religious
of his
ployees
terms
own
beliefs
they
though
... even
do not constitute direct
case,
standards, but that in
he
Venters’
discriminatory
Id.
intent.”
so.”).1
actually
arguably
did
Some decisions
See,
rely
proposition.
e.g.,
on the latter
Gei
has
to
Indurante
failed
Medtronic,
238, 242
er v.
99 F.3d
pretext
re
enough probative evidence of
to
1996);
Park,
Village
Gilty v.
Oak
trial.
evidence of
quire a
He has submitted
(7th Cir.1990)
1247, 1252-53
(requiring
& n. 7
the ones dis
other biased comments besides
“evidence of intentional discrimination direct
above;
un
those other comments are
cussed
Kennedy v.
plaintiff]”);
[the
ed
cf.
“stray
questionably just
remarks.” Taken
Newman,
Schoenberg, Fisher &
expressions
hostility
together,
alleged
of.
716, 724
To the
extent
heritage
are
toward individuals
Italian
to
ought
remarks
refer to Indurante’s
pretext.
Huff, 122
evidence of
See
some
termination,
problem
pose a
that would
alone,
These
how
F.3d at 385-86.
remarks
Burke,
Indurante’s case:
remarks
ever,
cannot
demonstrate
to In-
McCormick and
were
made
piece
But
does have another
385.
or his
durante and do not mention Indurante
everyone
pretext:
associat
of evidence
addition,
all.
In
the state
termination at
regime
swept
out.
with
are not con
ments Burke
Skoufis,
personal
Katina
secretary,
Ligurotis’
they
temporaneous
firing;
with retained,
Geier,
only
promoted to a
she was
for was not
16 months
come about
earlier.
job
agent.
a
example,
comments made
as business
we concluded that
However,
specific
refer-
agree
the absence
such
We
and the
with
dissent
here,
quite
bearing
specific
the other facts are
incon-
refer-
ence
clusive,
where
other cases
on the need
obviously
may
significant.
be
plaintiffs
ambiguous.
be
must
ence
individual
We have
held that
never
may
discrimination
not seem particularly
Yet,
strong.
he
go
jury
case must
if
(which
is able to
does have evidence
obligated
we are
supplement stray
with
other
to credit
judgment)
two
probative evidence whatsoever.
pres-
highly-placed
officials,
union
McCormick and
ent
the retention of Skoufis
only Burke,
is the
independently spoke of a plan to ter
piece
probative
added
evidence relevant to minate all of
Italian-Amerieans,
as well
pretext, and that
enough
is not
pronouncement
defeat
Zero,
as the
by
the trustee
summary judgment. There were 38 business
and future head of the
that “the
agents at the start of the trusteeship. Nine
goombahs
of the
remarks,
over.” These
agents
quit.
retired or
Twenty-seven
all uttered
individuals who at one time or
(Eleven
other
fired.
of the 27
decisionmakers,
another were
readily sup
descent.)
were of Italian
retained,
Two were
port the inference that
against
bias
Italian-
promoted.
and Skoufis was
A
jury
rational
may
Amerieans
played
have
a role in the
could not conclude that there was anything
decision
Indurante. Whether
less than a wholesale purge
Indurante has cited these remarks as direct
regime.
Skoufis,
Indurante claims that
discrimination, see,
evidence of
e.g., Price
Ligurotis’ personal secretary, “surely must
Hopkins,
Waterhouse v.
270-
U.S.
also have been an
adherent
the ‘Ligurotis
S.Ct.
more rather this evidence weight of ultimate
to the point. The stray or on it is to whether
than carry good take a while is, plans some fact after five months own remark
out. Zero’s be understood could termination last had at that the mission confirmation the content to the extent accomplished;
been ambigu render his comment context of
or a task meaning is not
ous, sorting out its judgment. Huff UARCO, Inc., Co., 913 F.2d Upjohn
1997), Shager v. citing
398, 402 therefore, agree, myself unable
I find from the too remote remarks are
that these entitle decision a matter why, as reason no
trial. I see that Indu- not infer
law, could a factfinder simply discharge in October
rante’s of Ital- purge culmination
the belated that Burke and
ian-Amerieans *6 year before. foretold
had SPLUNGE, Petitioner- B.
Charles
Appellant, Respondent-Appellee. PARKE,
Al C. 96-2509.
No. Appeals, Court Circuit.
Seventh 3, 1998.
Argued June 4, 1998.
Decided Nov. solely does because of discrimination evidence certainly true that the at 367. It lion. Ante mention. plaintiff for individual single on the out the did focus at issue Venters of dis- particular, see 123 evidence discharge direct her itself describes and forecast opinion did but nowhere other evidence F.3d we as "remarks crimination generalized remarks would suggest more eval- propensity the decisionmaker reflect of discrimination. direct criteria,” not constitute id. illegal employees based uate Indeed, this circuit case from aware of no amI clearly defini- 973; quite fit that examples these going to to "We're akin suggesting that a remark tion, that Indurante of remarks types as do the Blacks,” going to or "We're fire on here. relies to direct not amount would women” hire