Background
Russia Brown, a transgender man, worked as a bus operator for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) beginning in 2016, represented by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241. During his employment, Brown engaged in advocacy related to his transgender identity, including inquiring about bathroom access in 2017 and successfully pressuring the CTA to expand health insurance coverage for transition-related procedures in 2018. In June 2020, Brown applied for intermittent FMLA leave for back pain. The CTA administers FMLA through a third-party vendor, ReedGroup, which requires employees to report absences directly before notifying their work location. Brown’s initial certification from a chiropractor was contested; a second medical opinion found him ineligible for leave, and Brown failed to respond to efforts to schedule a required third opinion. ReedGroup ultimately denied his application in December 2020.
Despite the denial, Brown continued reporting FMLA absences to his work location without logging them through ReedGroup — conduct the CTA treats as falsification. By October 2020, Brown had accumulated twenty-four such unreported absences. A business manager discovered the discrepancy, and on January 7, 2021, the CTA discharged Brown for FMLA falsification. Four other non-transgender bus operators were simultaneously discharged for the same offense. The union assisted Brown in filing a grievance and requesting arbitration, but the CTA rejected a requested last chance agreement for Brown and for the other terminated operators alike.
Brown filed EEOC charges and then sued the CTA and the union, asserting Title VII transgender discrimination and retaliation against both defendants, FMLA interference and retaliation against the CTA, and an Equal Protection municipal liability claim against the CTA. The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding Brown’s evidence insufficient across every claim and noting that Brown had repeatedly failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1’s requirement to support factual assertions with on-point record citations. Brown appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed in full. On the procedural issues, the court held that the district court acted well within its discretion in enforcing Local Rule 56.1 — summary judgment is the “put up or shut up” moment in litigation, and it is not a court’s duty to scour the record for evidence the non-moving party failed to cite. The court also rejected Brown’s hearsay challenge as attacking a “phantom ruling”: the three statements he identified on appeal were either never excluded by the district court or were waived by failing to raise the issue in the opening brief.
On the Title VII discrimination claim against the CTA, the court found Brown failed both to identify a valid comparator and to demonstrate pretext. The only comparator he cited — “Operator Winston” — was presented without evidence that Winston was non-transgender or had committed comparable FMLA violations. The CTA’s stated reason for discharge (twenty-four documented falsification violations) was legitimate and non-pretextual; Brown’s arguments about an intent requirement in CTA guidelines and the use of an outdated form amounted to allegations of mistaken judgment, not dishonest motivation. The Title VII retaliation claim failed because a multi-year gap separated Brown’s 2017–2018 protected activity from his 2021 termination, and the relevant decisionmaker was unaware of his advocacy. Timing alone — even a six-month gap, let alone years — cannot sustain a causal inference, and Brown offered no additional evidence linking his advocacy to his discharge.
Brown’s FMLA interference claim failed because he did not complete the third-opinion process in good faith, binding him under federal regulations to the second opinion finding him ineligible for leave. His unsupported assertion that the CTA cancelled his appointment was contradicted by the admitted record showing he simply failed to respond to scheduling attempts. The FMLA retaliation claim was forfeited for failure to develop it below. The Equal Protection municipal liability claim rose and fell with the Title VII discrimination claim. Claims against the union likewise failed: record citations did not support Brown’s contention that the union declined to file a grievance or seek a last chance agreement, and the argument that Hill’s “braggartly” comment constituted an adverse action was waived for not having been raised in that posture before the district court.
Key Takeaways
- A multi-year gap between protected activity and an adverse employment action is counter-evidence of causation — even a six-month gap would fall far short of the “few days” window the Seventh Circuit has associated with timing-based causal inferences.
- To defeat summary judgment, a plaintiff must identify a comparator with specificity: a bare reference to another employee’s name, without evidence of that employee’s protected-class status or comparable misconduct, is insufficient.
- An employee who fails to cooperate in the FMLA’s multi-opinion certification process is bound by the second medical opinion under 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(c) and cannot later claim FMLA interference when leave is denied.
- Local Rule 56.1 (N.D. Ill.) will be strictly enforced: courts may disregard unsupported factual assertions, and the burden rests squarely on the non-moving party to cite the record — judges are not obligated to hunt for supporting evidence on their own.
- Arguments not raised in district court filings or in the opening appellate brief are waived and will not be considered by the Seventh Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that transgender employees claiming Title VII discrimination face the same evidentiary burdens as any other plaintiff at summary judgment: protected status alone does not insulate a claim from dismissal where record evidence of discriminatory motive is absent. The court’s straightforward application of McDonnell Douglas — finding no valid comparator and no pretext — underscores that an employer’s consistent enforcement of a neutral policy against FMLA falsification across both transgender and non-transgender employees presents a formidable obstacle to discrimination claims.
The case also serves as a practical reminder for employment litigants about procedural discipline. The Seventh Circuit’s lengthy discussion of Local Rule 56.1 compliance signals that citation failures are not technicalities courts will overlook, particularly in fact-intensive discrimination litigation. Counsel who bring or defend employment cases in the Northern District of Illinois should treat meticulous record citation as a substantive obligation, not an administrative formality.