Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)

Citation
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Parent Document
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Effective Date
2018-08-27

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text

905 chars
Wetzel separately alleged that after she complained about the harassment, the management defendants restricted her access to facilities and common spaces, downgraded her dining seat, halted her cleaning services, and attempted to build a case for her eviction. In doing so, she says, they retaliated against her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. St. Andrew offers several reasons to affirm the district court's dismissal of this claim. It argues that the alleged retaliatory conduct was not adverse action; if it was adverse, it was not causally related to Wetzel's complaints; and there is no allegation of discriminatory animus. St. Andrew conceded at oral argument that it argued in the district court only that Wetzel's retaliation claim lacked an allegation of discriminatory animus. We thus limit our remark to that argument. Fednav Int'l Ltd. v. Cont'l Ins. Co. , 624 F.3d 834, 841 (7th Cir. 2010).