liable, either directly or indirectly. Domino’s Pizza, 909 F.Supp. at 1534. d because of sex, plaintiff states that she was “resented” by coworkers but that Ayala was not, that she would have been treated differently if she had been a male friend of Ayala’s, and that the actions for which she was fired were not serious enough to terminate her. These statements are unsupported conclusions, and do not tend to show that she was discriminated against “because of’ her gender. Moreover, defendant points to evidence in the record that both plaintiff and Ayala, a male, were the subject of the rumors, and that both men and women were discussing them. Accordingly, the rumors do not show harassment “because of’ sex. See Pasqua v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 101 F.3d 514, 517 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, on the fourth prong of her
holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding that rumors are nondiscriminatory due to the very nature of such gossip holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials holding states may make nondiscriminatory religious practice exemptions but that such exemptions are not constitutionally required