Kenneth Felder v. Vertex Modernization and Sustainment LLC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 4, 2024*
Decided April 8, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
Nos. 23-2280 & 23-2444
KENNETH FELDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VERTEX MODERNIZATION AND
SUSTAINMENT LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:21-cv-00266-SEB-TAB
Sarah Evans Barker,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kenneth Felder appeals the summary judgment rejecting his claims that he was
twice denied employment because of his age, race, and disability. The district court
ruled that Vertex was entitled to summary judgment on Felder’s claims because he
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

Nos. 23-2280 & 23-2444 Page 2
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding one incident and did not
present evidence of discrimination as to the other. We affirm.
We construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Felder, the
nonmoving party. Barnes-Staples v. Carnahan, 88 F.4th 712, 715 (7th Cir. 2023). In April
2020, Felder first interviewed to work as an electronics assembler at Raytheon’s
Indianapolis location.1 After he was offered the position, Felder provided personal
information (including his birthdate) in the onboarding process. Raytheon, however,
soon rescinded its offer based on its purported determination that the work it had hired
Felder to perform would take place outside Indiana. Believing that Raytheon based this
decision on his age and race, Felder filed charges with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission against both Raytheon and the third-party staffing service
Raytheon used. The EEOC issued letters—informing him of the dismissal of his claims
and his right to sue—that corresponded with each of these charges.
In January 2021, Felder interviewed for another electronics-assembler position
that had opened at Raytheon’s Indianapolis site. Near the conclusion of his interview,
Felder acknowledged an arthritic condition that intermittently flared up but would not
significantly affect his ability to perform the work. Raytheon ultimately filled the
position by hiring two other candidates, who were, in Raytheon’s view, better qualified.
Felder again filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, this time against only
Raytheon, and he received another letter informing him that his claim had been
dismissed but that he could sue Raytheon on his own.
Felder then filed his suit in federal court, alleging that he was twice not hired on
the basis of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621–634; race and gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; and disability, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101–12213. The district court screened his complaint and
dismissed his claims of racial and gender discrimination but allowed Felder to proceed
on his theories of age and disability discrimination.
Discovery ensued. Felder submitted multiple interrogatories and requests for
production to Vertex, and he attempted to serve subpoenas on non-party witnesses.
When those efforts failed to yield the evidence that he believed existed, he filed
repeated motions to compel against both Vertex and non-party witnesses. The court
1 Vertex acquired parts of Raytheon’s business, including the operations to
which Felder applied for employment, effective December 6, 2021.

-- 2 of 4 --

Nos. 23-2280 & 23-2444 Page 3
rejected the motions, explaining that he had not shown that he made an effort to
informally resolve the discovery disputes, as required by Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
The district court then granted Vertex’s motion for summary judgment. As to the
April 2020 hiring incident, the district court determined that Felder had failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies because the EEOC charge he supplied was
unsigned, undated, and otherwise lacking any indication of receipt by the EEOC.
Regarding Felder’s January 2021 candidacy, the district court concluded under Ortiz v.
Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765–66 (7th Cir. 2016), that Felder had not shown
sufficient evidence to infer discrimination because Vertex had offered a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason why Raytheon hired two other candidates over him—their
superior experience working with engineers and in production environments.
On appeal, Felder first challenges the district court’s conclusion regarding the
April 2020 job offer that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. He maintains
that he filed two distinct EEOC charges, one against Raytheon and one against the
third-party staffing service. And in his reply brief, he asserts that the court overlooked
his right-to-sue letter, which he had attached to his complaint.
Even if we assume that Felder exhausted his administrative remedies regarding
this claim, he cannot prevail on the merits. “There is no necessary priority among non-
jurisdictional reasons for rejecting a suit or claim,” Estremera v. United States, 724 F.3d
773, 775 (7th Cir. 2013), and here the merits are straightforward. Felder argued in the
district court that Raytheon rescinded its offer to him only after learning of his age. But
he offered no evidence to call into question Vertex’s explanation that Raytheon
withdrew all ten electronic-assembler job offers because the anticipated work no longer
was going to be placed in Indiana. Under such circumstances, no reasonable juror could
infer any causal link between Felder’s age or disability and the recission of his offer.
See Gnutek v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 80 F.4th 820, 824 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing Ortiz, 834 F.3d at
765–66).
Second, Felder contests the district court’s conclusion that no reasonable jury
could find that Raytheon discriminated against him in January 2021 by hiring other
candidates whom he deems less qualified. But as the district court noted, Felder’s own
opinion about his qualifications—compared to others’—is not evidence of
discrimination unless the comparison is so favorable to him that no reasonable person
would choose not to hire him. See Robertson v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 949 F.3d 371, 381
(7th Cir. 2020). Raytheon never stated that Felder was not well-qualified; it decided that

-- 3 of 4 --

Nos. 23-2280 & 23-2444 Page 4
the relevant experience of the two individuals it hired rendered them better candidates.
This is a valid, non-discriminatory reason for declining to hire a plaintiff. See Marnocha
v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 986 F.3d 711, 721 (7th Cir. 2021).
Finally, Felder generally challenges the district court’s denial of his motions to
compel. But district courts have broad discretion in managing discovery, Alicea v.
County of Cook, 88 F.4th 1209, 1218 (7th Cir. 2023), and here the court appropriately
justified each of its rulings. The court noted, for instance, that Felder did not state that
he conferred with Vertex, failed to identify what relevant evidence Vertex was
withholding, and incorrectly attempted to serve interrogatories on non-parties. To the
extent Felder highlights documents in Vertex’s extensive appendix that he says were
not disclosed before he took this appeal, the record reflects that Vertex timely disclosed
the requested evidence and attached it in documented emails.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --