*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. 104 L.Ed.2d 268 *5 system.’ personal (1989) Indeed secretary would (O’Connor, J., concurring), or as evi likely loyal be the adherents, most and one dence that the nondiscriminatory reasons who privy is to all manner of confidentiali- the Local has articulated for his dis ties.” Pl.-Appellant Br. of 27. But this is all charge pretextual, see McDonnell-Doug just speculation. See Karazanos v. Navistar Corp. Green, las v. 792, 802-05, U.S. Int’l Transp. Corp., 332, 1817, 1824-26, S.Ct. (1973); 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (7th Cir.1991). If Indurante had submitted Dep’t Texas Community v. Bur Affairs evidence that Skoufis and the dine, two business 248, 253-56, 450 U.S. 101 S.Ct. agents who were retained were among (1981), L.Ed.2d 207 in the end is most enthusiastic backers of the Ligurotis immaterial; either way, the remarks estab regime, this would very be a different ease. lish a fact as to the real reason for But Indurante does deny that he backed Indurante’s termination. regime, and he has My colleagues write these comments off as no evidence very that the few employees who remarks,” “stray Waterhouse, see Price were retained were also backers. U.S. at 109 S.Ct. (O’Connor, at 1804-05 So the retention of Skoufis does not contrib- J., concurring), they because did not mention ute significantly to Indurante’s ease. Indu- Indurante, did not forecast his individual de- rante did other evidence relevant to mise, were substantially separated in time preliminary issues but that evi- from his discharge, and in the case of Zero’s dence is not relevant to the issue of ethnically-charged reference to “the See Swanson Leggett Platt, Inc., v. goombahs” over, being they because F.3d were not employees made to of the Local and Affirmed. did not expressly employment. refer When two decisionmakers reveal that there ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit plan is a in the get works to rid of the Judge, dissenting. Italian-Amerieans, the omission to mention Against the backdrop of evi- considerable or his discharge particular dence that Indurante and most of his col- would seem to be a minor is no —there leagues lost jobs their as the result of top- dispute, all, after that Indurante is Italian- to-bottom house cleaning in Local American, Indu- perceived such, as and that he claim rante’s of national origin discrimination was indeed That terminated.1 McCormick 1. I my am distressed to see opinion for the court marks of kind specifically must refer to the City of Delphi, plaintiff's employment individual situation in or- (7th Cir.1997), cited for proposition that re- der to constitute direct evidence of discrimina- sixteen these uttered fired Indurante before months observation, addressed but one salient

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