William Shures v. Ameren Illinois Company

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 23, 2024*
Decided April 24, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER , Circuit Judge
T HOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2761
WILLIAM S HURES ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A MEREN ILLINOIS C OMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.
No. 20-cv-2264
Colin S. Bruce,
Judge.
O R D E R
William Shures contends that his former employer violated the Age Discrimina-
tion in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34, by firing him when he was 56 years old.
The employer replied that Shures, a supervisor in its drafting department, was not or-
ganizing his team productively, had developed a negative attitude, and had not im-
proved his performance despite being on performance-improvement plans for several
years under different managers. The district court granted summary judgment against
* We granted the parties’ joint motion to waive oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2761 Page 2
Shures after concluding that he had failed to show that the employer’s explanation for
the discharge was a pretext for discrimination. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165388 (C.D. Ill.
Aug. 14, 2023).
Shures contends on appeal that, because he denies all of the employer’s findings
concerning poor performance, a jury trial is required to resolve the dispute. This misun-
derstands what is necessary to establish pretext. Most fired employees believe that they
have unrecognized or underappreciated talents. But it does not matter what the em-
ployee believes; the question is what the employer believes. To establish pretext, the
plaintiff must show that the employer does not believe its own explanation—that it is
lying rather than just making an error. See, e.g., Petts v. Rockledge Furniture LLC, 534 F.3d
715, 726 (7th Cir. 2008); Bragg v. Munster Medical Research Foundation Inc., 58 F.4th 265,
271 (7th Cir. 2023).
Substantially for the reasons the district judge gave, we conclude that a reasona-
ble jury could not find that the employer’s reasons are fabrications. They may be wrong,
as Shures believes, but they are not lies. It is unnecessary to elaborate, so the judgment
of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --