# Carol BRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANTE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 8, 1997 · 119 F.3d 1266

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490514

## Case

- **Full name:** 74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 614, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,834 Carol Brill v. Lante Corporation
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 8, 1997
- **Citations:** 119 F.3d 1266; 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,834; 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 614; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16979; 1997 WL 406266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eschbach
- **Judges:** Posner, Eschbach, Manion
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490514

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in entering summary judgment for defendant, despite the defendant’s alleged lack of response to plaintiffs discovery requests, where plaintiff filed motion to compel three months after close of discovery and three weeks …
- holding that out-of-court statements about an employee were not hearsay because the question was not whether the statements were true, but whether the supervisor had an “honest belief” that the statements were true
- holding that out-of-court statements concerning an employee’s performance problems did not constitute inadmissible hearsay because they went to the issue of the employer’s honest belief concerning such problems.
- holding that out-of-court statements concerning an employee’s performance problems were not hearsay because they went to the issue of the employer’s “honest belief” concerning such problems
- holding that a motion for summary judgment made before discovery has ended is appropriate in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact

## Opinion text

ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur with the majority’s result. I do not join the opinion, however, because I do not believe that this was the easy, almost frivolous case that the majority makes it out to be. Because this ease was presented at the summary judgment stage, I saw it as a difficult case, even though in the end I agree that Ms. Brill did not present sufficient evidence to create any genuine issues of fact that merit a trial. I am also concerned that the majority’s discussion (actually dicta) dismisses the possibility that certain circumstances could ever amount to discrimination or sexual harassment, when the only conclusion necessary to the disposition of the appeal is that the facts in this case did not present a genuine question for trial. One example, although not the only one, is the majority’s suggestion that because an alleged harasser’s remarks are addressed to someone else, although made in the plaintiffs presence and within her hearing, they cannot be considered sexual harassment of the plaintiff. Supra at 1274. It seems clear to me that sexual remarks, even though addressed to another, potentially could create a hostile work environment for those who hear them. In my view, the incidents described by Ms. Brill did not amount to sexual harassment, not because the remarks were addressed to someone else in Ms. Brill’s presence and within her hearing, but because they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to amount to sexual harassment under the law of this circuit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490514. Public record. Not legal advice.