NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United
To be citedStates Court
only in accordance of R.Appeals
with Fed. App. P.
32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 6, 2007∗
Decided August 6, 2007
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 07-1769
Appeal from the United
LUDMYLA SKORYCHENKO, States District Court for the
Plaintiff-Appellant, Western District of
Wisconsin.
v.
No. 06 C 78
WOMEN’S COMMUNITY, JOHN M. SCHELLPFEFFER, John C. Shabaz, Judge.
and ANDREW W. SCHMIDT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Order
Last year we held that the complaint in this case sufficed to state a claim,
and we remanded for further proceedings. No. 06-2164 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2006)
(unpublished order). The district court then granted summary judgment for the
defendants on the federal claims (dismissing state-law claims without prejudice),
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating
Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 07-1769 Page 2
and plaintiff has appealed a second time.
All of the federal theories depend on plaintiff’s contention that defendants
discriminated against her on the basis of her Ukrainian national origin. To
establish discrimination, plaintiff had to establish that other persons, similarly
situated but of a different national origin, were treated better than she was. The
district court concluded that a reasonable jury could not find discrimination on this
record, and we agree. All of plaintiff’s arguments boil down to contentions that she
was entitled to one or another benefit. But the possibility that defendants made a
mistake does not establish discrimination. Plaintiff’s brief does not identify any
similarly situated person of different national origin who received the benefits that
plaintiff sought. Accordingly, the record would not permit a reasonable fact-finder to
conclude that discrimination occurred.
Affirmed