Kathryn Lee v. Raby Institute for Integrative Medicine at Northwestern, LLC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 27, 2025*
Decided May 28, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2265
KATHRYN LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RABY INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATIVE
MEDICINE AT NORTHWESTERN,
LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 20-cv-7254
John J. Tharp, Jr.,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kathryn Lee, who is over the age of 40, was employed as a massage therapist for
Raby Institute for Integrative Medicine in Chicago. After resigning from her job, she
filed suit, alleging, among other things, that the company fired her because of her age,
in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634; and
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2265 Page 2
improperly administered her continuing insurance coverage after her discharge, in
violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 1161–1169. The district judge granted Raby’s motion for summary judgment,
concluding that each of Lee’s claims failed for lack of proof.
On appeal, Lee does not contest the correctness of the district judge’s decision,
nor does she provide any case law or legal argument that would cast doubt on the
ruling. Even pro se plaintiffs must comply with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, which requires a section of the brief containing “appellant’s
contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the
record on which the appellant relies.” F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); see Greenbank v. Great
Am. Assurance Co., 47 F.4th 618, 629 (7th Cir. 2022). Because Lee’s appellate filing
presents no argument contesting the district judge’s reasoning, we dismiss the appeal.
See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --