Cox v. American Drug Stores, Inc.

Seventh Circuit

Cox v. American Drug Stores, Inc.

103 F. App'x 32

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 2004

DocketNo. 03-2462

StatusPublished

This text of 103 F. App'x 32 (Cox v. American Drug Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. American Drug Stores, Inc., 103 F. App'x 32 (7th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Former employee Kathleen Cox sued her employer, the Oseo Drug Store, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., alleging that Oseo discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her. The district court granted summary judgment for Oseo because: (1) the majority of Cox’s claims based on discrete acts of discrimination were time-barred; (2) Cox had not shown that her work environment was objectively hostile or abusive; and (3) Cox could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut Osco’s proffered reasons for demoting her.

Proceeding pro se on appeal, Cox fails to set forth any argument for reversing the decision of the district court. Her appeal consists of requests that we review various facts and documents that were not presented to the district court, and we have held that issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal. See, e.g., Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir.2002). Furthermore, we note that Cox’s appellate brief fails to conform to the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9), because she failed to present a coherent legal argument supported by relevant citations to the record and to legal authority. We have dismissed pro se litigants’ appeals for similar deficiencies. See, e.g., Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001).

Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Former employee Kathleen Cox sued her employer, the Oseo Drug Store, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., alleging that Oseo discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her. The district court granted summary judgment for Oseo because: (1) the majority of Cox’s claims based on discrete acts of discrimination were time-barred; (2) Cox had not shown that her work environment was objectively hostile or abusive; and (3) Cox could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut Osco’s proffered reasons for demoting her.

Proceeding pro se on appeal, Cox fails to set forth any argument for reversing the decision of the district court. Her appeal consists of requests that we review various facts and documents that were not presented to the district court, and we have held that issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal. See, e.g., Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir.2002). Furthermore, we note that Cox’s appellate brief fails to conform to the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9), because she failed to present a coherent legal argument supported by relevant citations to the record and to legal authority. We have dismissed pro se litigants’ appeals for similar deficiencies. See, e.g., Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001).

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-american-drug-stores-inc-ca7-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack