Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Vargas v. Borg-Warner Automotive Diversified Transmission Products, Inc.
Citation: 16 F. App'x 476Docket: No. 00-3701
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; July 31, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Yolanda Vargas and other employees of Borg-Warner Automotive Diversified Transmission Products, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the company, fellow employees Dr. Larry Cole and Charles Blankenbaker, the United Auto Workers Local 287 union, and its president, Jon Hines, alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, prompting Vargas to appeal pro se, which was subsequently affirmed. The court noted Vargas's failure to comply with S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56.1 by not citing evidence in her Statement of Genuine Issues, leading to acceptance of the defendants' supported factual assertions. Vargas, an African American hired in 1986, held multiple positions at Borg-Warner and expressed interest in a Group Leader position in 1996, which ultimately went to a white employee. She also claimed discriminatory discipline practices regarding absenteeism. Vargas filed discrimination charges with the EEOC in 1997, leading to her lawsuit in May 1998. The district court consolidated her case with that of other employees who made similar claims. The court determined that Vargas did not establish a prima facie case of race or disability discrimination, particularly failing to demonstrate that she applied for the Group Leader position or that it was available. Additionally, Vargas's arguments on disciplinary actions lacked sufficient analysis and legal citations, although the court considered her pro se status. Ultimately, the court found no error in the district court’s conclusions regarding her claims of discrimination in promotion and disciplinary matters. Yolanda Vargas failed to establish a prima facie case for her claim, as she did not demonstrate that any adverse employment action occurred against her, referencing Simpson v. Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc. The court affirmed the decision regarding Vargas and dismissed the appeals of Samuel Miles, Gloria Scott, Tony Henry, and Rochelle Perkins. Although the appeal was filed on behalf of all appellants, only Vargas submitted a signed brief, as she was the only pro se litigant. Under precedent, a pro se litigant cannot represent others. Consequently, the court only considered Vargas's arguments and dismissed the appeals of the other appellants due to insufficient submission of their own briefs, citing United States v. Sosa.