{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:1833a1586802219cad520c3790ece2f0c76d5e88c6ea418f74f731b2f67df57d","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"In the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"No. 25-1533","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11"]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14","para_15"]},{"title":"ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 2026 — DECIDED JULY 14, 2026","paragraphs":["para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Derrick McCoy worked as a Protec-","paragraphs":["para_20","para_21","para_22"]},{"title":"Paragon agreed to reinstate him only if the Department of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Homeland Security—which contracted with Paragon to pro-","paragraphs":["para_25"]},{"title":"2 No. 25-1533","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31"]},{"title":"DHS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"McCoy could not make out his prima facie case of age dis-","paragraphs":["para_34"]},{"title":"DHS’s suitability determination was made because of","paragraphs":["para_36"]},{"title":"I","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Derrick McCoy was employed as a Protective Services Of-","paragraphs":["para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"McCoy was stationed at that field office when a customer","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"The parties dispute whether McCoy cooperated with the po-","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"There’s evidence that Taylor had previously made derogatory","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-1533 3","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60"]},{"title":"McCoy was suspended pending Paragon’s investigation","paragraphs":["para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"After his termination, McCoy engaged in union grievance","paragraphs":["para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73"]},{"title":"Chris Campbell, a Personnel Security Specialist at FPS, re-","paragraphs":["para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78"]},{"title":"Security Operations Branch Chief at FPS. Martinez agreed","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83"]},{"title":"McCoy brought this case against DHS alleging (as relevant","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86"]},{"title":"1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. The ADEA protects workers 40","paragraphs":["para_88"]},{"title":"4 No. 25-1533","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"367 (7th Cir. 2019). McCoy did not name Paragon as a defend-","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95"]},{"title":"II","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Sinha","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105"]},{"title":"McCoy argues that DHS discriminated against him when","paragraphs":["para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120"]},{"title":"No. 25-1533 5","paragraphs":["para_122"]},{"title":"F.3d 802, 810 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). Given DHS’s","paragraphs":["para_124"]},{"title":"Although we have doubts, even if DHS was McCoy’s em-","paragraphs":["para_126","para_127","para_128"]},{"title":"An ADEA plaintiff may prove discrimination “by intro-","paragraphs":["para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"Caterpillar Inc., 140 F.4th 900, 911 (7th Cir. 2025). We consider","paragraphs":["para_133"]},{"title":"760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016), and “what matters is whether a plain-","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"957–58 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). One way to do this","paragraphs":["para_138"]},{"title":"Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). McCoy presents his claim","paragraphs":["para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"McCoy’s claim fails on at least the second and fourth ele-","paragraphs":["para_151"]},{"title":"6 No. 25-1533","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"McCoy argues that he was meeting Paragon’s legitimate","paragraphs":["para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159"]},{"title":"We can assume without deciding that DHS’s suitability","paragraphs":["para_161"]},{"title":"McCoy asserts that both his termination from Paragon and the","paragraphs":["para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170"]},{"title":"At summary judgment, McCoy identified for the first time","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"PSO Haywood as a comparator. But the district court declined","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182"]},{"title":"And Rule 37(c)(1) provides that where a party fails to identify","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 25-1533 7","paragraphs":["para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188"]},{"title":"26 is substantially justified or harmless is left to the “broad","paragraphs":["para_190","para_191"]},{"title":"The district court did not abuse its discretion when it de-","paragraphs":["para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"King v. Ford Motor Co., 872 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 2017) (find-","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208"]},{"title":"Even if the district court should have allowed McCoy to","paragraphs":["para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"8 No. 25-1533","paragraphs":["para_217","para_218"]},{"title":"(citation modified). Other than stating that Haywood was a","paragraphs":["para_220"]},{"title":"McCoy does not explain how they are similarly situated, and","paragraphs":["para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"Igasaki, 988 F.3d at 958 (“Whether a comparator is similarly","paragraphs":["para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228"]},{"title":"For similar reasons, McCoy’s ADEA claim fails under","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ortiz. Under Ortiz’s holistic approach, the district court con-","paragraphs":["para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"The record contains no evidence that DHS’s suitability deter-","paragraphs":["para_235"]},{"title":"940 F.3d at 369–70. The only evidence remotely related to age","paragraphs":["para_237","para_238"]},{"title":"PSOs were “too old” to do the job. But McCoy’s age or physi-","paragraphs":["para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243"]},{"title":"F.3d 495, 499 (7th Cir. 2009). Rather, the record demonstrates","paragraphs":["para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248"]},{"title":"No. 25-1533 9","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"F.3d at 575 (finding that an ADEA plaintiff could not proceed","paragraphs":["para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268"]},{"title":"AFFIRMED","paragraphs":[]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"In the","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"For the Seventh Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 25-1533","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"DERRICK MCCOY,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"No. 22 C 2690 — Daniel P. McLaughlin, Magistrate Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 2026 — DECIDED JULY 14, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"____________________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Before EASTERBROOK, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Derrick McCoy worked as a Protec-","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"tive Services Officer at Paragon Systems until he was termi-","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"nated after he was involved in an incident with an unruly cus-","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"tomer at a social security office. After McCoy was terminated,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Paragon agreed to reinstate him only if the Department of","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Homeland Security—which contracted with Paragon to pro-","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"vide security services at the social security office—deter-","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"2 No. 25-1533","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"mined that McCoy was suitable to continue to work on a DHS","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"contract. But after reviewing the circumstances of his termi-","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"nation, DHS provided McCoy with an unfavorable suitability","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"determination. McCoy sued DHS, alleging that the decision","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"was unlawful age discrimination. The district court granted","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"DHS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"McCoy could not make out his prima facie case of age dis-","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"crimination. Because the record contains no evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"DHS’s suitability determination was made because of","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"McCoy’s age, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Derrick McCoy was employed as a Protective Services Of-","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"ficer (PSO) by Paragon Systems until his termination. Paragon","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"contracted with the Federal Protective Service (FPS)—part of","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"the Department of Homeland Security—to provide security","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"services at various federal facilities. One of these facilities was","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"a social security field office in Chicago.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"McCoy was stationed at that field office when a customer","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"became unruly. After the customer refused to leave, McCoy","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"and PSO Lattrice Haywood escorted the customer to an","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"empty interview room. While Haywood stepped out of the","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"room to call the police, McCoy took photos of the customer.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"The parties dispute whether McCoy cooperated with the po-","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"lice once they arrived at the scene. FPS Inspector Jamie Taylor,","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"who had arrived at the scene at the same time as the police,","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"reported to his commander that McCoy failed to use hand-","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"cuffs to restrain the unruly customer while the customer was","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"in the interview room by herself and used his cellphone to","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"take photos of the customer, violating orders. Taylor’s com-","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"mander subsequently reported the incident to Paragon.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"There’s evidence that Taylor had previously made derogatory","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"No. 25-1533 3","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"comments, including that some PSOs were “too old” and not","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"in shape to do the job.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"McCoy was suspended pending Paragon’s investigation","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"into the incident. After determining that McCoy had not","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"properly followed orders and detainment procedures, Para-","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"gon terminated McCoy. Paragon noted that McCoy initially","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"left the unruly customer unhandcuffed, took pictures of the","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"individual with his personal device, failed to cooperate with","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"an official investigation, and that his interview responses cor-","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"roborated the reports regarding his behavior.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"After his termination, McCoy engaged in union grievance","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"procedures with Paragon. These proceedings led to a settle-","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"ment in which Paragon agreed to rescind McCoy’s termina-","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"tion if he could obtain a favorable suitability determination","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"from DHS.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Chris Campbell, a Personnel Security Specialist at FPS, re-","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"viewed McCoy’s application, and after receiving more infor-","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"mation from McCoy and Paragon about the termination, rec-","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"ommended an unfavorable suitability determination. The fi-","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"nal suitability determination was made by Dina Martinez, the","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Security Operations Branch Chief at FPS. Martinez agreed","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"with Campbell’s recommendation and concluded that McCoy","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"was unfit to work on a DHS contract. McCoy does not dispute","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"that Martinez was unaware of McCoy’s age at the time of the","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"decision.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"McCoy brought this case against DHS alleging (as relevant","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"here) that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. The ADEA protects workers 40","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"years of age and older from age-based employment discrimi-","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"4 No. 25-1533","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"nation. McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive, Inc., 940 F.3d 360,","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"367 (7th Cir. 2019). McCoy did not name Paragon as a defend-","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"ant. The district court granted DHS’s motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could conclude","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"that McCoy’s age was the reason for the adverse employment","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"action, and McCoy appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"II","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Sinha","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"v. Bradley Univ., 995 F.3d 568, 573 (7th Cir. 2021). Summary","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We “consider all of","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"non-moving party, and we draw all reasonable inferences","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"from that evidence in that party’s favor.” McDaniel, 940 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"at 367 (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"McCoy argues that DHS discriminated against him when","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"it engaged in what he says was a biased and procedurally","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"flawed investigation that led to an unfavorable suitability de-","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"termination. But McCoy has not brought a claim against Para-","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"gon and seems to assume that DHS is his employer. We note","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"at the outset that it’s unclear whether McCoy was employed","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"by DHS for the purposes of his ADEA claim. DHS moved to","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"dismiss McCoy’s claim below on this basis, but the district","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"court denied the motion, concluding that “DHS had just as","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"much authority as Paragon, if not more, when it came to rein-","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"stating McCoy.” And DHS later conceded for the purpose of","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"summary judgment that there was a dispute of fact concern-","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"ing whether it could be held liable as a joint employer. We","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"have noted that “an entity other than the actual employer may","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"be considered a ‘joint employer’ only if it exerted significant","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"No. 25-1533 5","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"control over the employee.” Whitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"F.3d 802, 810 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). Given DHS’s","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"concession, we are not being called upon to resolve this issue.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Although we have doubts, even if DHS was McCoy’s em-","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"ployer, McCoy’s claim fails. We therefore can assume without","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"deciding that DHS was McCoy’s employer for the purpose of","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"his claim.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"An ADEA plaintiff may prove discrimination “by intro-","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"ducing direct or circumstantial evidence that he suffered an","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"adverse employment action because of his age.” Murphy v.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Caterpillar Inc., 140 F.4th 900, 911 (7th Cir. 2025). We consider","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"the evidence holistically, Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016), and “what matters is whether a plain-","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"tiff presented enough evidence to allow the jury to find in his","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"favor.” Igasaki v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Pro. Regul., 988 F.3d 948,","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"957–58 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). One way to do this","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"is under the burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). McCoy presents his claim","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach but","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"separately argues that Ortiz supports his claim.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"demonstrate that (1) he was over 40 years of age; (2) he was","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) he suf-","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"fered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situ-","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"ated, substantially younger employees were treated more fa-","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"vorably. Murphy, 140 F.4th at 911. McCoy was over 40 years","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"old at the time that DHS made the suitability determination","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"and therefore is a member of the ADEA protected class. But","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"McCoy’s claim fails on at least the second and fourth ele-","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"ments.","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"6 No. 25-1533","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"McCoy argues that he was meeting Paragon’s legitimate","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"expectations. But his suit is against DHS, and he provides no","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"evidence to support his claim that he was meeting DHS’s le-","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"gitimate expectations. It makes no difference for the purpose","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"of McCoy’s claim against DHS that he was meeting Paragon’s","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"expectations—and regardless, the evidence indicates that he","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"wasn’t.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"We can assume without deciding that DHS’s suitability","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"determination constitutes an adverse employment action.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"McCoy asserts that both his termination from Paragon and the","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"suitability determination separately constitute adverse em-","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"ployment actions. While termination is an adverse employ-","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"ment action, Barton v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d 448, 453–54 (7th","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Cir. 2011), it was Paragon, not DHS that terminated McCoy,","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"so we consider only the unfavorable suitability determina-","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"tion.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"McCoy also cannot demonstrate that a similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"substantially younger employee was treated more favorably.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"At summary judgment, McCoy identified for the first time","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"PSO Haywood as a comparator. But the district court declined","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"to consider Haywood as a comparator, reasoning that McCoy","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"was obligated to put forward Haywood as a comparator dur-","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"ing discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) re-","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"quired McCoy to disclose the name of each individual that he","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"may use “to support [his] claims or defenses.” Parties should","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"supplement these disclosures in a timely manner if they learn","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"“that in some material respect the disclosure is incomplete or","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"incorrect” and where “the additional or corrective infor-","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"mation has not otherwise been made known to the other par-","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"ties during the discovery process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"And Rule 37(c)(1) provides that where a party fails to identify","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"No. 25-1533 7","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"a witness as required by Rule 26, “the party is not allowed to","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"use that information or witness to supply evidence on a mo-","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"tion … unless the failure was substantially justified or is","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"harmless.” Determining whether non-compliance with Rule","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"26 is substantially justified or harmless is left to the “broad","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"discretion” of the district court. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade v. Mul-","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"tiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 514 (7th Cir. 2011).","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"The district court did not abuse its discretion when it de-","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"clined to consider Haywood as a comparator. Although DHS","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"was aware during discovery of Haywood’s involvement in","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"the incident with the unruly customer, McCoy never indi-","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"cated that he intended to use her as a comparator for the pur-","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"poses of his ADEA claim until after the close of discovery. In-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"deed, DHS repeatedly asked McCoy for names of potential","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"comparators during his deposition and in written discovery,","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"and McCoy failed to provide any. The district court noted that","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"discovery had already been completed, and allowing McCoy","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"to present Haywood as a comparator would require reopen-","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"ing of fact discovery. We see no error in this reasoning. See","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"King v. Ford Motor Co., 872 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 2017) (find-","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"ing that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"rejected a party’s attempt to put forward a declaration from a","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"witness who had not been disclosed until after the close of","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"discovery).","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Even if the district court should have allowed McCoy to","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"use Haywood as a comparator, McCoy also failed to demon-","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"strate that he and Haywood were similarly situated. “A valid","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"comparison normally entails a showing that the two employ-","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"ees dealt with the same supervisor, were subject to the same","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"standards, and had engaged in similar conduct without such","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distin-","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"8 No. 25-1533","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"guish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them.” Ar-","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"nold v. United Airlines, Inc., 142 F.4th 460, 472 (7th Cir. 2025)","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"(citation modified). Other than stating that Haywood was a","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"younger PSO (and it’s unclear exactly how old Haywood is),","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"McCoy does not explain how they are similarly situated, and","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"there is no evidence that Haywood engaged in the same pro-","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"tocol violations during the incident or at any other time. See","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Igasaki, 988 F.3d at 958 (“Whether a comparator is similarly","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"situated is typically a question for the fact finder, unless, of","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"course, the plaintiff has no evidence from which a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"fact finder could conclude that the plaintiff met his burden on","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"this issue.”) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"For similar reasons, McCoy’s ADEA claim fails under","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Ortiz. Under Ortiz’s holistic approach, the district court con-","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"siders “whether the evidence would permit a reasonable fact-","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"finder to conclude” that the plaintiff’s age “caused the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"charge or other adverse employment action.” 834 F.3d at 765.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"The record contains no evidence that DHS’s suitability deter-","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"mination was made because of McCoy’s age. See McDaniel,","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"940 F.3d at 369–70. The only evidence remotely related to age","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"is the stray remarks that Taylor, who was not involved in the","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"suitability decision, apparently made, including that some","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"PSOs were “too old” to do the job. But McCoy’s age or physi-","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"cal capability were not given as reasons for the unfavorable","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"suitability determination and stray remarks are typically in-","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"sufficient to create an inference of discrimination when not","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"made by a decision-maker. See Mach v. Will Cnty. Sheriff, 580","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"F.3d 495, 499 (7th Cir. 2009). Rather, the record demonstrates","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"that McCoy received an unfavorable suitability determination","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"because his conduct during the incident made him unfit to","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"continue to work on the DHS contract with Paragon. And to","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"the extent that McCoy raises a cat’s paw theory of liability","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"No. 25-1533 9","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"based on Taylor’s comments, McCoy would need to demon-","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"strate that Taylor “actually harbored discriminatory animus","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"against him” and that Taylor’s “input was a proximate cause”","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"of the adverse action. McDaniel, 940 F.3d at 370. McCoy has","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"failed to do so. It’s unclear when Taylor made these com-","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"ments, and to the extent McCoy argues that Taylor tended to","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"exaggerate or fabricate complaints about others, McCoy has","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"failed to explain how these fabrications relate at all to age-","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"based animus. Further, Martinez—who made the ultimate","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"suitability determination—arrived at her conclusion after","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"considering a recommendation from Campbell, who had con-","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"ducted an independent investigation, considering both Para-","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"gon’s and McCoy’s explanations of the incident. See Sinha, 995","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"F.3d at 575 (finding that an ADEA plaintiff could not proceed","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"under a cat’s paw theory of liability where the ultimate deci-","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"sion was not wholly dependent on an allegedly biased super-","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"visor’s narrative). Thus, McCoy has presented no evidence","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"that raises an issue of material fact that DHS’s unfavorable","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"suitability determination was because of his age.","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"AFFIRMED","paragraph_id":"para_269"}],"word_count":2318,"cites":["411 U.S. 792","940 F.3d 360","995 F.3d 568","772\nF.3d 802","140 F.4th 900","834 F.3d\n760","988 F.3d 948","662 F.3d 448","648 F.3d 506","872 F.3d 833","142 F.4th 460","580\nF.3d 495"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"ac480fba4a799ae68faaae442548e148d5a946ecdeb3c8223d7fba88a5c6d879","source_url":"https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-14/C:25-1533:J:Kirsch:aut:T:fnOp:N:3573108:S:0","fetched_at":"2026-09-28T09:12:25.779+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","verification":{"stored_sha256":"ac480fba4a799ae68faaae442548e148d5a946ecdeb3c8223d7fba88a5c6d879","recomputed_sha256":"ac480fba4a799ae68faaae442548e148d5a946ecdeb3c8223d7fba88a5c6d879","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T15:09:29.067Z"}},"hash":"sha256:1833a1586802219cad520c3790ece2f0c76d5e88c6ea418f74f731b2f67df57d","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T14:02:10","content_hash":"sha256:1833a1586802219cad520c3790ece2f0c76d5e88c6ea418f74f731b2f67df57d","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T16:09:29.230Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-1533-2026-07-20"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T09:23:01.911Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca7-25-1533-2026-07-20&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":12757}}