Krysten A. Overly v. Keybank National Association, Key Investment Services LLC

Circuit Judge Evans died on August 10, 2011, and did not å
participate in the decision of this case, which is being resolved
by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. §46(d).
The Honorable William M. Conley, United States District åå
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting by designa-
tion.
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 10-2705
KRYSTEN A. OVERLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
KEY INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC AND
KEYCORP INSURANCE AGENCY USA (WA), et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:08-cv-00662-SEB-TAB—Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.
ARGUED JUNE 3, 2011—DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 2011
Before EVANS , WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CONLEY, å
District Judge.åå

-- 1 of 20 --

2 No. 10-2705
CONLEY, District Judge. Krysten Overly sued her em-
ployer Key Investment Services LLC, its parent company
and several of its affiliates (collectively “KeyBank”) in
Indiana state court for allegedly discriminating based on
her gender and retaliating against her because of her
complaints of gender discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. KeyBank re-
moved the case to federal court and later filed a motion
for summary judgment on both the discrimination and
retaliation claims. The district court granted that
motion and entered final judgment in favor of KeyBank.
On appeal, Overly argues the district court erred in
entering summary judgment because genuine issues of
material fact remained regarding whether she was dis-
criminated and retaliated against, subjected to a hostile
work environment and constructively discharged be-
cause of her gender and for complaining about gender
discrimination. Finding no disputed issues of genuine
fact material to Overly’s claims of gender discrimina-
tion or retaliation, and agreeing with the district court’s
reasons for granting KeyBank’s summary judgment
motion, that judgment will be affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
Because Overly’s claims were decided on summary
judgment, we view all facts in the light most favorable
to Overly—the non-moving party—and draw all reason-
able inferences in her favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d
942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 3
A. Overly’s Use of Scanned Signatures
Overly became a financial advisor with the
McDonald Financial Group in 2004. A couple years
later, she accepted a similar position with KeyBank,
providing financial advice to clients at several of its
Central Indiana branches. Initially, Overly’s direct su-
pervisor was Andrew Moulton, the regional sales
manager for KeyBank’s Central Indiana territories.
Moulton resigned in January 2007. Rick Bielecki became
Overly’s new regional sales manager in March 2007.
Even though he was her direct supervisor, Bielecki
usually only interacted or met with Overly once a
month because of his supervisory responsibilities for
multiple territories.
Upon becoming regional sales manager, Bielecki
would “ride-along” with financial advisors under his
supervision in the Central Indiana branches to observe
how they conducted business. During a ride-along
with Overly on April 12, 2007, Overly explained the
procedures used in opening new client accounts. One
procedure that came to light was Overly’s reliance
on her scanned, as opposed to in-person, signatures in
executing account documents. Overly explained that
Bielecki’s predecessor Moulton had suggested that her
assistant, Carol Cooney, paste Overly’s scanned signa-
ture on client documents to “speed up” the opening of
accounts on those occasions when Overly could not be
at the specific branch immediately to sign the document.
Overly had apparently used this procedure approxi-
mately twenty times over the previous year and was

-- 3 of 20 --

4 No. 10-2705
the only financial advisor to do so. Overly also en-
couraged bankers to sell investment products outside
KeyBank’s product menu without Overly being there
to supervise.
B. Compliance Office Investigation and Recommendation
Following their ride-along, Bielecki told Overly to
stop using her scanned signature to open accounts
until he looked into the policy further. Bielecki then
reported to KeyBank’s compliance office that Overly
used scanned or “cut and pasted” signatures. Bielecki
also reported that Overly encouraged bankers to sell off-
menu products. This report triggered an investigation.
The compliance office told Bielecki to make certain
both procedures stopped. Bielecki reiterated this to his
entire staff, reminding them that in opening new
accounts each financial advisor should personally sign
a new account application before submitting it.
The next day, Overly spoke with Bielecki and his boss,
Wally DePasquale, the general regional manager. During
this conversation, Overly was told that using scanned
signatures and advising bankers to sell outside the
product list were both improper procedures. Overly
was asked if any other financial advisors in the territory
followed similar practices. Although she did not know
of anyone personally, Overly mentioned being told
that Kirk Green, also a financial advisor, failed to meet
with some clients before signing paperwork to open

-- 4 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 5
Overly also mentioned an “Exception List” that was created 1
so certain bankers who completed the necessary course
would be authorized to sell additional financial products.
Apparently, the bankers working with Green were not on the
list and should not have been opening certain kinds of
accounts without him. Although Overly continually refers to
the “Exception List” as the same thing as her using a
scanned signature, the list was considered different and
apart from Overly’s use of a scanned signature.
new accounts.1
Bielecki reported Overly’s allegations about Green to
the compliance office. He also questioned Green about
procedures used to open accounts. Green denied that
he ever signed new account paperwork without first
meeting the customer. The compliance office told Bielecki
to remind his employees, including Green, about the
company policy requiring advisors to be present with
the customer when signing an account document.
As part of their investigation, the compliance office
and Bielecki also contacted bankers working with Overly
to ask them about selling financial products outside
KeyBank’s product menu. One banker admitted making
unauthorized sales of variable annuity products with-
out Overly’s assistance.
After its investigation, the compliance office recom-
mended that Overly be terminated. Bielecki and
DePasquale challenged the recommendation, arguing
that Overly should remain employed at KeyBank. Later
in the month of May, Overly was given a formal written

-- 5 of 20 --

6 No. 10-2705
warning from the compliance office and a $1000 fine
for violations of the fraud and “Know Your Client”
policies at KeyBank and the National Association of
Securities Dealers Rule 2310. Additionally, a male
banker who admitted to selling variable annuities in
violation of KeyBank policy was fined $100.
C. Overly’s Problems with Bielecki
At the end of May 2007, Overly contacted Marcia
Hopkins, in KeyBank’s human resources department,
about the disciplinary actions taken against her by Key-
Bank, as well as sexist remarks she attributed to
Bielecki. Overly explained that Bielecki had called her
“cutie” between 5 and 10 times, though stopped after
Overly told him she was not his cutie. Also, in an email,
Bielecki stated that it would be better for Overly and
Jennifer Miller, a junior advisor, to go to a golf outing
because “your pretty faces are much better than my
ugly mug.” Bielecki also required Overly to leave her
planner and purse outside the room when having an
office meeting.
Overly expressed concern that the discipline she had
received would be marked on her license and hurt
her chances for future employment. Hopkins advised
Overly that KeyBank had put the issue behind it and that
she should do likewise. When Overly continued to ask
about the discipline, Hopkins offered to talk with
DePasquale, but Overly did not want to involve him.
Hopkins suggested that Overly should keep her “head

-- 6 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 7
down and just go back to work and act as though every-
thing’s fine.”
D. Realignment of Financial Advisors
During the summer of 2007, KeyBank’s president,
Mark Vosen, began implementing a company-wide
business plan to increase the number of financial ad-
visors throughout the country. The goal was to enable
sales teams to serve more effectively by reducing the
number of bank branches each advisor would serve. Key-
Bank set the goal of trying to rearrange territories so that
each advisor was responsible for four or five branches
with between $125 million and $150 million in core de-
posits. In January 2006, KeyBank had 81 advisors and, by
January 2010, the number had increased to 211 nationwide.
As the regional sales manager, Bielecki was respon-
sible for the realignment of advisors in his region. In
addition to realigning territories, Bielecki informed the
Central Indiana region that a new financial advisor,
Shaun Weyer, had been hired. With the inclusion of
Weyer as an advisor, the Central Indiana region con-
sisted of 6 advisors: Overly, Weyer, Doug Ferry, Kirk
Green, Deb Bohannon and Marshall Byers. After the
realignment, Ferry was responsible for 5 branches with
a core deposit base of $186,027,005; Bohannon was re-
sponsible for 5 branches with a core deposit base of
$110,798,221; Green was responsible for 5 branches with a
core deposit base of $147,617,964; Byers was responsible
for 7 branches with a core deposit base of $101,335,781;

-- 7 of 20 --

8 No. 10-2705
Weyer was responsible for 6 branches with a core
deposit base of $139,416,285; and Overly was respon-
sible for 6 branches with a core deposit base of
$147,179,571.
As the result of this realignment of territories, Overly
lost 3 of her old branches and gained 2 new ones. Overly
was upset by the realignment because she had worked
hard to build-up the lost territories. According to
Jennifer Miller, the junior advisor working under
Overly, the realignment appeared to provide Weyer
with all the best branches and to divide up the
territories “so that everyone was driving to incon-
venient locations, except Shaun.”
E. Overly’s Formal Complaint
On August 7, 2007, Overly sent a letter to KeyBank’s
CEO alleging that she had been discriminated and retali-
ated against in the form of (1) the disciplinary warning
she received, (2) being called “cutie,” and (3) the loss
of territory. Two days later, Yolanda Johnson, from
KeyBank’s human resource department, informed Overly
that her allegations would be investigated. Overly was
sent a letter on August 22, 2007, informing her that the
investigation had been concluded. The letter advised
Overly that the investigation had found no evidence of
discrimination or retaliation. Instead, the investigation
found the discipline Overly received was warranted in
light of her improper use of a scanned signature. Further,
it concluded that Bielecki’s calling her “cutie,” while

-- 8 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 9
Although not listed in her complaint letter, Overly also 2
began having trouble accessing new client information after
the August 1, 2007, territory realignment. As a result, Overly
was forced to ask her assistant, Carol Cooney, to obtain
new client information for her.
Since April 2007, Overly had been researching the possibility 3
of starting her own financial advising business.
inappropriate, would not occur in the future. Finally,
Overly was informed that the realignment in her
district was done in accordance with the company’s
nationwide business plan.2
F. Overly’s Resignation
After Overly received the investigation letter at the end
of August, she saw Bielecki only once over the next
month and they exchanged maybe 5 to 6 emails. Both
Overly and Bielecki attended a symposium at the end
of September, but did not speak.
Upon returning from the symposium, Overly per-
sonally submitted her resignation letter to Bielecki on
October 1, 2007. Upon receiving the letter, Bielecki ap-
plauded and grabbed Overly’s arm to push her out the
door. Overly yelled twice at Bielecki to get his hands off
her. As Overly left Bielecki’s office, he yelled “Good
Riddance Bitch.” After her resignation, Overly began
working at her own business, Prosperity Financial Advi-
sors.3

-- 9 of 20 --

10 No. 10-2705
Two weeks after her resignation, Overly filed a
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that she suffered discrim-
ination and retaliation at KeyBank because of her gender.
On January 31, 2008, the EEOC issued her a right to sue
letter. On March 14, 2008, Overly filed a second com-
plaint with the EEOC, making similar discrimination and
retaliation charges against KeyBank. The EEOC issued
her a second right to sue letter on November 24, 2008.
II. ANALYSIS
We review the district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment de novo, viewing all facts in a light most favorable
to Overly. Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679, 683 (7th
Cir. 2010). Even under this lenient standard, however,
Overly has not met her burden of proving her em-
ployer discriminated on the basis of her gender in
violation of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Because
Overly advances Title VII claims for a hostile work envi-
ronment, constructive discharge and sex discrimination,
we address each in turn.
A. Title VII Sexual-Harassment Claim
1. Hostile work environment
Overly claims that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment after Bielecki became her supervisor. To
survive KeyBank’s summary judgment motion on this
claim, Overly must demonstrate that: “(1) her work

-- 10 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 11
environment was both objectively and subjectively of-
fensive; (2) the harassment complained of was based
on her gender; (3) the conduct was either severe or perva-
sive; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.” Scruggs
v. Garst Seed Co., 587 F.3d 832, 840 (7th Cir. 2009).
In determining whether the sexist conditions of employ-
ment are severe or pervasive enough to create “an
abusive working environment,” we consider “the
severity of the allegedly discriminatory conduct, its
frequency, whether it is physically threatening or humil-
iating or merely offensive, and whether it unreasonably
interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id.
The conditions Overly worked under while Bielecki
acted as her supervisor between April and Septem-
ber 2007 simply do not meet this standard.
While both inappropriate and condescending, Bielecki
referring to Overly as “cutie” 5 to 10 times over the
course of two months is not sufficiently severe or
pervasive to create a hostile work environment by itself,
especially since it is undisputed that Bielecki stopped
when asked. Further, Bielecki’s single statement that
Overly’s and another female co-worker’s “pretty faces”
would better represent KeyBank at a golf outing than
his “ugly mug” is not objectively offensive, even if
Overly may have found it subjectively so. Indeed, nothing
Bielecki is alleged to have done because of Overly’s
gender, taken individually or as a whole, can be viewed
as threatening or humiliating, much less frequent
enough, to have unreasonably interfered with her work
performance. Accepting as true for purposes of summary
judgment that Bielecki also made Overly leave her purse

-- 11 of 20 --

12 No. 10-2705
and planner outside of a meeting, that one-time act is
also not sufficiently severe or frequent to meet the
Scruggs standard.
Perhaps a combination of all of these incidents, along
with the discipline Overly received for using a scanned
signature, might have approached this level, but Overly
has offered no evidence to permit a reasonable jury to
find the discipline was based on anything other than a
violation of KeyBank policy. Although Overly asks us to
“infer” that the discipline was gender-related, such an
inference is not reasonably supported by the record. As
such, we need not accept it. See, e.g., Omnicare, Inc. v.
UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2011).
(“Even on summary judgment, district courts are not
required to draw every requested inference; they must
only draw reasonable ones that are supported by the
record.”).
Overly readily admitted to being the only financial
advisor to use scanned signatures in violation of written
policy; she was disciplined accordingly. Regardless of
what Overly’s previous supervisor had told her, there
is no dispute that the procedure violated KeyBank’s
written policy, as evidenced by the fact that no other
advisors were using scanned signatures. Even accepting
Overly’s secondhand information that a co-worker en-
gaged in some other improper conduct was not dis-
ciplined after denying engaging in it does not make
reasonable an inference that Overly was disciplined
because she is a woman.
Similarly, Overly has failed to offer evidence sufficient
for a reasonable jury to find the realignment of territories

-- 12 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 13
was gender-based. Every financial advisor in the
Central Indiana region received reassigned territories as
a result of the company’s undisputed business plan to
add more financial advisors in an effort to increase
client services. At most, the evidence in the record
creates an inference that Bielecki rearranged the territory
to favor Shaun Weyer at the inconvenience of all other
advisors, both male and female, but such preferential
treatment is evidence of favoritism, not sexism.
The financial figures offered by Overly are, if anything,
even less supportive of her claim of gender-based dis-
crimination. Overly estimates that she would lose ap-
proximately $100,000 over the next year as a result of the
realignment. This is based on the fact that between
January 2007 and August 2007, she had earned $172,374.94,
which averaged out to approximately $22,575.12 per
month, and the fact that she then received a check in
October from sales in September 2007 that totaled
$8,226.02. However, this figure is of little, if any, eviden-
tiary value in determining the likely financial impact of
realignment on Overly’s pay. This is because Overly
provides no actual, monthly earnings, leaving no way of
determining whether the October amount is anomalous,
much less whether the asserted drop in income was
likely to continue over time. Overly’s comparison of a
single month’s performance against a seven months’
average also fails to account for month-to-month fluctua-
tions, nor did she provide how much she would have
earned from her old territories. In the end, one could only
speculate wildly about the actual financial effect of the

-- 13 of 20 --

14 No. 10-2705
Even assuming Overly was earning less after the reassign- 4
ment, there is nothing in the record to show she took a dispropor-
tionate hit financially than did her male counterparts. At most,
the evidence provided by Overly proves she would receive a
reduced slice of the income pie, but this is hardly surprising
given that the company added an additional advisor to serve
the same number of sale territories.
realignment from the limited information Overly
provided.4
The conduct coming closest to suggesting interference
with Overly’s work performance is her loss of access
to new client information after the reassignment of ter-
ritories. According to Overly at least, she was denied
access to new client information between August and
September, forcing her to seek this information through
her assistant. There is, however, no evidence from which
a reasonable jury could infer that the limitation was a
mere annoyance resulting from the realignment process,
as opposed to an intentional and unreasonable inter-
ference motivated by gender bias. In fact, although the
problems with accessing new clients began occurring
when the reassignment of territories went into effect
on August 1, Overly did not include the problem in
her letter to KeyBank management informing them of
the discrimination and retaliation she claimed to be ex-
periencing. Further, Overly never mentioned the prob-
lem to human resources, even though she was dis-
cussing her discrimination and retaliation allegations
with them during the month of August.

-- 14 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 15
Even assuming that the conduct was an unreasonable,
intentional interference, there is no evidence to suggest
the conduct was the result of gender discrimination.
While both Overly and her assistant stated that she was
the only advisor who was denied access to client infor-
mation, Overly was not the only woman advisor, sug-
gesting that the conduct was the result of personal animus
toward Overly, rather than gender-based animus. Ulti-
mately, this evidence is only speculation that the
conduct was the result of gender discrimination and
reliance on speculation is not enough to get the case to
a jury. See Davis v. Carter, 452 F.3d 686, 697 (7th Cir.
2006) (explaining that “when the evidence provides for
only speculation or guessing, summary judgment is
appropriate”).
By far the most disturbing evidence of gender bias
comes after Overly had already resigned, but this cannot
establish a hostile environment before her resignation.
While it is unacceptable for a person to grab another in
the workplace without permission, much less to refer
to a woman as a “bitch,” Bielecki’s actions do not
satisfy Overly’s burden to prove she suffered objec-
tively severe and pervasive gender discrimination while
working for KeyBank. In fact, Overly admits that she
had very little face-to-face interaction with Bielecki
during the six months he supervised her. At most, they
met once a month. The fact that Bielecki acted wrongly
after Overly resigned does not serve as evidence of a
hostile work environment while working at KeyBank.
Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment on Overly’s hostile work environment claim
was proper.

-- 15 of 20 --

16 No. 10-2705
2. Constructive Discharge
To prevail on her claim of constructive discharge, Overly
would have had to advance evidence “even more
egregious than that needed for a hostile work environ-
ment such that [s]he was forced to resign because [her]
working conditions from the standpoint of the rea-
sonable employee had become unbearable.” Thompson v.
Mem’l Hosp. of Carbondale, 625 F.3d 394, 401-02 (7th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, Overly’s failure
to advance evidence sufficient to find a hostile work
environment claim also dooms her constructive dis-
charge claim.
3. Discrimination
Finally, Overly claims discrimination based on her
gender, purportedly proceeding under what has (some-
what inaccurately) been denominated as the “direct
method” of proof. “A plaintiff may prove discrimina-
tion using the direct method by establishing either an
acknowledgment of discriminatory intent or circum-
stantial evidence that provides the basis for an inference
of intentional discrimination.” Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp.,
472 F.3d 930, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). Overly does neither.
Despite Overly’s argument to the contrary, Bielecki’s
patently offensive response to Overly’s resignation is not
direct evidence of gender discrimination. Some addi-
tional evidence would be required for that statement to
be regarded by a reasonable jury as a confession that
any previous, adverse conduct was taken for a discrim-

-- 16 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 17
inatory purpose. See Lim v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 297 F.3d
575, 580 (7th Cir. 2002) (requiring” direct evidence” to
“prove the particular fact in question without reliance
upon inference or presumption”) (internal quotation
and emphasis omitted). For example, if the term “bitch”
were uttered as an explanation for contemporaneously
singling out Overly from her male counterparts for loss
of pay, territory, benefits or opportunity, then no infer-
ence would be required. As already discussed, Overly
has offered no such evidence here.
The statement is also not circumstantial evidence of
discrimination, since it was neither made around the
time of any adverse employment actions, nor references
any adverse employment actions (like the discipline
letter Overly received back in May). Instead, however
offensive, the statement was a stray remark made after
Overly resigned. See Nichols v. S. Ill. Univ.-Edwardsville,
510 F.3d 772, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding “stray
remarks that are neither proximate nor related to the
employment decision [at issue] are insufficient to defeat
summary judgment) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted”); see also Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc.,
470 F.3d 685, 694 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding “isolated com-
ments that are no more than ‘stray remarks’ in the work-
place are insufficient to establish that a particular deci-
sion was motivated by discriminatory animus”).
As discussed above in the context of Overly’s hostile
work environment claim, there is a general lack of other
circumstantial evidence from which to infer that any of
Bielecki’s conduct—such as his reassigning of Overly’s
territories, temporarily being denied access to client

-- 17 of 20 --

18 No. 10-2705
accounts, or reporting her to the compliance office—was
the result of intentional, gender-based discrimination.
The only alleged, gender-related comment was Bielecki
calling Overly “cutie,” something by all accounts
he stopped when told she did not like its use. Moreover,
its use is not linked to or contemporaneous with any
adverse employment action.
Although viewing the facts in a light most favorable to
Overly suggest that Bielecki may not have liked her, and
even that he may have been making her life at KeyBank
more difficult, those same facts do not support a rea-
sonable inference that he did not like her because she
is female. Simply put, there are no bits and pieces of
circumstantial evidence that “point directly to a discrimi-
natory reason for [Bielecki’s] action.” Petts v. Rockledge
Furniture LLC, 534 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation omitted). Accordingly, the district court was
correct in granting KeyBank’s motion for summary judg-
ment on Overly’s claim for gender discrimination.
B. Title VII Retaliation Claim
To have survived summary judgment on her retalia-
tion claim using the direct method, Overly needed to
show “(1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity;
(2) she suffered an adverse employment action taken by
the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the
two.” Kodl v. Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. 45, Villa Park, 490 F.3d
558, 562 (7th Cir. 2007). The parties agree, as do we, that
Overly’s complaint to KeyBank’s HR department about
Bielecki’s alleged sexual harassment is a protected

-- 18 of 20 --

No. 10-2705 19
activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The problem remains with Overly’s
inability to show that Bielecki took any adverse action
against her because of her complaint.
Overly points to the reassignment of some of her ter-
ritories as evidence of retaliation. No reasonable jury,
however, could find that the reassignment was because
of Overly’s complaint. Instead, the reassignment was in
line with KeyBank’s national business plan to hire more
financial advisors and assign fewer territories to each
advisor. There is not even evidence that at the con-
clusion of the reassignment of territories within the
Central Indiana region, Overly’s new territories made
her any worse off than the other advisors in the re-
gion. Even the junior advisor working for Overly noted
that the reassignment appeared bothersome for every-
one—except for the newly-hired advisor—who unsur-
prisingly was a former colleague of Bielecki.
The same is true of Overly being denied access to new
clients. The initial problem with this conduct being evi-
dence of retaliation is that by her own admission Overly
failed to mention it in her August 7 written com-
plaint despite being denied access to clients when
the reassignment occurred on August 1. More im-
portantly, there is no evidence from which to infer that
Overly was denied access to clients because of her sex.
As the record shows, no other advisors, including
other female advisors, were denied access to clients. In
fact, Bielecki never mentioned or discussed Overly’s
complaint.

-- 19 of 20 --

20 No. 10-2705
The record is simply void of the bits and pieces of
circumstantial evidence necessary to establish a causal
link between Overly’s complaint and Bielecki’s conduct.
As a result, the district court properly granted KeyBank
summary judgment on Overly’s retaliation claim.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
11-10-11

-- 20 of 20 --