Case Information

*1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION cited accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois Submitted December ^[*] Decided December Before

MICHAEL KANNE, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge ‐ PIERRE Q. PULLINS, Appeal from United States District

Plaintiff Appellant Court Southern District Division. v . 1:14 cv DKL TWP

AMAZON.COM.INDC, LLC,

Defendant Appellee. Denise K. LaRue, Magistrate Judge .

O R D E R

unheeded led discharge, Pierre employer, subsidiary Amazon.com, Inc., under Title VII. claims Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. untimely Because Pullins presented insufficient the denied the belated affirm. Unless otherwise noted, in the light most favorable to Pullins, party opposing Hooper Proctor Health Care Amazon hired Pullins to pack boxes to fill orders warehouse Plainfield, where received training Amazon’s productivity policy. policy provides employees who fail to meet Amazon’s goals will receive progressive discipline, possibly culminating discharge three written warnings. Pullins later transferred to warehouse. During first six weeks there, meet expectations. Supervisors issued Pullins first written warning coached him on how could be more productive. Soon after, though, gave Pullins second warning continuing to meet

Upon receiving first warning, Pullins charge EEOC. As received second warning, charged discriminated against him age, race, gender retaliated against him charge. it Pullins’s learned two charges Pullins half million dollars to settle rejected demand. Pullins right to sue letter, no violation. continued to retrain while investigated but still underperformed. gave final weeks received letter. Although policy provided once retained him more while it investigated work briefly improved during time, but more decreased productivity, him. appealed internally, panel management peer voted affirm Amazon, contending retaliated against EEOC. U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a). Two important rulings followed. First, request wanted against law firm, insurer, judge more time 3 15 3502 anything until four deadline, so leave amend. It explained that excuse for delay (he said that he had misread deadline) was unreasonable, involved facts that filed The ruling was summary summary judgment concluded established that was fired for meeting expectations, for charges.

On appeal begins by challenging grant of advances reasons why believes supports a fired retaliation for is timing: third settlement letter; maintained employment seven third suggesting performance enough; used seven week delay conceal retaliatory motive. Second, points supposedly comparable worker, Naima whom an performance rehired. has triable question of retaliation. See Ortiz v. Werner

Enters., Inc. , 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016). analyzed through dual lenses of direct indirect methods of proof, approach abandoned Ortiz Id. approach affect our review, which is de novo Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc. , 3788, WL 5795797, *2, *4 Oct. has identified suggesting other than See Chaib v. Geo Grp., Inc. , begin, contest fell shy

high demands, legitimate ground Boss Castro Instead, believes timing coming week delay before motivated termination employment. timing alone almost never sufficient justify trial about retaliation. Ripberger Corizon, Inc. Moreover, discharged according disciplinary progression specified by policies. Compliance policies undermines speculation retaliation. Parkins Civil Constructors Ill., Finally, although chance see if improve performance, opportunity achieved replies Garcia’s rehiring retaliatory. Garcia were similarly situated because private employed did reapply Amazon. These differences supervision conduct prevent meaningful comparison between Garcia Pullins. See Martino W. & Fin. Grp. 202–03 And even if Garcia were similarly situated, they same treatment because they were issue motion argues district court erred denying motion even though missed deadline. explains know local court rule allowed extend deadlines if parties court agree or cause. S.D. Ind. L.R. 1(e). abuse discretion denying even pro se litigants expected know, use, follow rules. Members Paige In event, dispute amendment contains Accordingly properly as well. Cont’l Bank, N.A. Meyer

AFFIRMED.

[*] We have unanimously agreed decide case without oral argument briefs adequately present legal arguments, oral argument would significantly aid F ED R. A PP P. 34(a)(2)(C).