## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3916 M AR K P. R O D GE RS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. J ES S E C. W HIT E , S ecr eta ryo fS tat e of Illino is, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- 3161

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J UL Y 12, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2011

Befo re B AUER, C UDAH Y, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges. C UD AHY, Ci r cu i tJudg e . Ma r kR o d g e r s , a l o n g t i me e mplo yee o fthe Se cre tar y o fS tat e’ s o ffi ce i n I l l i noi s, was fire d from h is job b u t re in st at e d a f t e r arb itr at ion . In th is l i ti gat ion he cl ai m s that tw o w hi te m anage rs ta rg ete d hi m f orte rm i nati on be cause h e is bl ack. The di str i ct cour t g ran te d sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants. Ro dge r s’ s p rim ar y a r g um en t o n a ppea li s th athe a nd tw o w hi te cow or ke rs enga ged i n the sam e a l l ege d m i s-2 N o. 10

- 3916 conduct, ye t hi s white c ou n ter parts were tr eat ed l ess ha r sh l y . Ro dge r s f o cus es o n the c o wor k erwi ththe sam e j ob titl e , b ut the oth er w hite em p loyee, Rod gers’s i mme d i a t e s u p e r v i s o r , i s th e b e t t e r c o mp a r a t o r . We have obs er ved i n m any deci si ons that em plo yee s o f di ffer i ngr an k s us ua l l y make po o r c o m par at o r s, b utthe ra tio n ale be h in d th at ge n er al ru le d oe s n otap p ly in th is ca se . W e co nc l ude , b as ed on evi den ce tha t Ro dge r s en gag ed i n the sam e co nd uct as hi s s up er vi sorbut w as d iscipl i ned m or e har shl y, thata j ury coul d rea sonably i nfertha t Ro dge r s was di sc r i m i na te d a g ai nst
. W e thus va c at e t h e jud gm en t a n d rem an d for t ria l.

I . B a c kg r o und The f ol l owing acco unt i s dra w n fro m the evi dence at su m m ary j ud gm en t, as view ed i n th e li gh t m ost favorab le t o R od ge rs . S e e S ow v. F or t vi l l e Pol i c eD ep’t, 63 6 F. 3d 293, 29 9- 300 ( 7th C ir. 2 011). W hen Rodger s was fi re d i n 200 6, he was the o n ly bl ack em plo yee i n a c re w ofm or e than 27 l aw n-m ai ntenance w or ker s. H e had been a g r o un ds wo r k e r f o r mo r e tha n 2 0 y e a r s , mo s to f th at tim e a s a su p er vis or , an d h ad be en d i s c i p lin ed on ly twi ce , r ec ei vingv erba lwar ni ng s i n 1 98 9 an d 1 99 9. The dec i si o n t o fi re R od g er s was made byDo nna F i tt s, the di r ec to r ofhi s depa r tment, a nd S te phe n Ro th, the pe r so nneldi re cto r. Both are w h i te. Thei r re aso ns f ordi scharg i ng Rodger s, wh i ch ar e s et ou t in an A ugust 2 006 l ett ersi gned by Roth, al lst em m ed fro m two i nci dents. The fi rs t i nci dent i nvol ved the al l ege d m i suse of s tat e pr o per ty
. In the Fa l lof20 05 , the Ins pec to r Ge ne r alf o r theN o. 10

- 3916 3 S ec r et ar y o fS ta te ’ s o ffi ce i ss ue d a r epo r t su m m ar i zing an inv es tig at ion int o a lleg at ion s t h at R od ge rs a n d h is im m ed iate sup ervisor, Da ve R us ciol ell i, l et crew m em bers bo r r o w st at e equi pm en t f o r pe r so na lus e. Acco r di ng to the re port, the pract i ce w as disc ove re d when a tem pora ryem plo yee i nj ured h im sel fr etr i evi ng a sta te- own ed aer ato r fro m a cre w m em ber ’ s ho use. T h e crew m em ber i n s i s t e d th a tb o th R o d g e r s a n d R u s c i o l e l l i ha d kn o wn he bo rr owed s tate e quipm ent a nd , i n f act, em bra ced an “o pen door ” polic y r ega rdi ng per sonaluse ofst ate equi pm ent. Rodger s a n d Rusci ol el l ideni ed the cre w me mb e r ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s , th o u g h, a c c o r d i n gt o th e I nspecto r Gen er al, Rodger s g ave shi fti ng expl anati ons: R o d g e r s i n i t i a l l y s a i d h e th o u g h tth e t e mp o r a r y e mplo yee had b een i nj ured w hi l e get ti ng the aer ato r fro m a s tor age ar ea, b u t late r he to l d an i nvest i gat orthat he sent the tem pora ry em plo yee and a re gu lar cr ew m em berto r etr i eve the ae ra toras so on a s he hear d that an em plo yee had tak en i t h om e. The i nvest i gat or re port ed that R od ger s had be com e i rr i tat ed w hen ask e d abou t this ap p aren t d iscrep an cy, w hich Rod gers att ributed

— t r u th fu l l y, we mu s t a s s u me

— to hi s ini ti al con fus i o n abo utthe i nv es ti g at o r ’ s que st i o ns . Ro dge rs also had told t h e investigator th at th e tem p orary em plo ye e ascr ibed hi s inj ury to l i fti ng weights, a sta tem ent that the you n g m an deni ed m aking. A t thi s s tag e, o fc o ur se , we m us t cr edi t Ro dge r s’ s ve r si o n. I n resp ons e to the Insp ector G en eral’s rep o r t, the p ers o n n e ld e p a r t me n ti n i t i a t e d d i s c i p l i n e a g a i n s tth e e mpl o y ee s i nv o l ve d. The cr ew mem be r who b o r r o wed the4 N o. 10

- 3916

ae r at o r was fi r ed, i n pa rt b ecaus e he b o r r o wed i t, b ut p rin c ip ally be c au se m an ag em en t d isc ov er ed aro u n d th is sam e t i m e tha t h e la cked a val i d dri ver ’ s l i cense, wh i ch was a c o ndi ti o n o fhi s empl o y m en t. Tha t e m p lo y ee c o ntes ted hi s di schar ge, but l ost
. Fo r Rodgers , the per sonnel departm ent pr opose d an 18- day suspensi on, yet for Rusci ol el l i, wh o i s white , o nl y a 3- day suspensi on was c o nt e mpl a ted. Fo r r e a s o ns n o tdi s c l o s e d in the r e c o r d, ne i the r p r o po s e d s us pe ns i o n wa s e v e r i m pl e men t e d, a nd , s o i ta pp e a r e d a tthe t i me, the ma t t e r wa s dr o pp e d. The seco nd i nci dent cam e t o l i ght in ea rly 20 06 after Fi tts , wh o w as cri ti calo fRusci ol elli ’ s m anage m ent o f R od g e r s, w as ap p oin te d as th e a c tin g d ire c to r of th eir departm ent. In J anuary20 06, Fi tts r ecei ved fro m Rodgers and Rus c iole l l iti m e s l i ps f orthe m onth o fDece m ber. Rus ci o l el l ia l o ne was r es po ns ibl e f o r c o m pl et i ng th e s e t i me s l i ps , b uth e h a d a s k e d R o dg e r s t o h e l p o ut, w hi chRo dge r s ha d a g r ee d t o do

. F i tt s th o ug httha t th e D ecem berti m e s l i ps w er e m i ssing nece ssa ryi nfo rm ati on, and so she and Roth beg an to i nvest i gat e. W ha t th eyf o und i s th atc r ew mem be r s wer e r eque st i ng l e a v e tha twa s n o ts ho wn i n the p a y r o l l s y s t e m a s e a r ne d. I t turned out that F itt s’ s pre decesso r, Ceci lTurner, had author i zed Rusci ol el l ito gi ve w or ker s “ com p ti m e” f or thei r ove rt i m e hours after the Se cre tar y of St at e im posed a mora t o r i um o n o v e r t i me pa y . T urne r h a d p r o po s e d, and gai ned unio n approva lf or, this sy ste m bec ause som e t ask s, s u c h as snow re m ova l, co uld notal w ays be c om p l ete d du ring nor m alworking hour s. U nd er T urn er’s system the o vertim e hou rs w ere record ed i nfor-N o. 10

- 3916 5

Tu rner w as ouste d and replac ed w ith Fit ts afteri t was  disc overed that he knew , an d h ad tri ed to cover up, thatthr ee janito rs w ere p ad d ing th e i r ho u rs. H e w as co nv icted in federal court on c harges ofw ir e fraud and l ying to the FBI. S ee Un i ted S tates v. Tu rner, 55 1 F .3d 65 7, 65 9 -6 1 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). The re i s no s ugge s t i on thatTur ne r’ s pol i c y ofawar di ng c om pen sato ry tim e w as illega l or b ey on d his a u t h or ity to im p lem en t, bu t Fit ts says that her ti m ekeeping invest igat ion w as d ir ec ted at“s t ra i ghten ing up a depa rt m en tthatwas unde r a m aj or in v es tig a tio n for er ro rs .” m al l y “ offthe boo ks, ” a nd em p l oye es used pers onal ti m e t o draw ag ai nst the bank ed ove rt i m e.  A fe w d a y s a ft e r r e c e i v i n gth e D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 5 t i me sl i ps fro m Rusci ol el l iand R odger s, Fi tts m et w i th the m to di scuss t i m ek ee pi ng . S he l ai d o utwhats he tho ug ht w as the cor re ct proce du re f or com ple ti ng tim e sl i ps, a n d s h e o r d e r e d th e t wo me n t o s t o p r e c o r d i n go v e r t i me
“ o ffth e b o o k s ” a n d t o s t a r ts u b mi t t i n gal lo v e r t i me r eque st s to he r t wo da y s i n a dva nc e. S he gave the sa m e o rd er to R ob er t D effe nb au gh , a w h ite cr ew su p er visoral so und erRusci ol el l i ’ s s up er vi si on. But Fitts d id not baro ver ti m e work, and fro m the re cord it appears that s h e c o n t i nu e d T u r n e r ’ s p r a c t i c e o fa wa r d i n gc o mpensato ryti m e, tho ugh w i th the understa nd i ng tha t f or m al re cor ds w oul d b e kept of the ove rt i m e ho u rs . Rusci ol el l iand Rodger s s topped usi ng the “ offthe boo ks” sys tem i m m edi ate ly, but F i tts st i l lwanted Rod ger s t o re d o h is D ec em b er tim e s lip s t o c o n f o rm to h er n ew ly i m ple m en ted pro cedure. S he sa ys that he f ai l ed to proper l y c om ple te the s l i ps eve n aftershe re turned them6 N o. 10

- 3916
t o h i m s e v e r a lt i me s ; R o d g e r s s a y s th a t h e c o u l d n ’ tc o mpl et e th e f o r m s be ca us e F i tt s to o ka way hi s com p ut er, whe r e the r e l e v a ntda t a wa s s t o r e d. R us ciol ell i an d R od gers also told Fi tts that R od gers had ret ai ned hand w ri tte n re cord s of hi s cr ew ’ s past overti m e h ou rs. Fitts asked f or cop ies, and Rod gers provi ded wh at he tho ught was a com ple te set( though he l ater found addi ti o na lo ve r ti m e r ec o r ds i n a fi l i ng cabi net o utsi de hi s o ffi ce)

. Duri ng F eb ru ar y 2 006 a l i a i s o n fr o m th e p e r s o n n e ld e p a r t me n tt a l l i e d th e u n c o mp en sa te d ov er tim e fo r R od ge rs ’s c re w an d m ist ak en ly concl ud ed that th e w orker s had ta ken m or e than th at am o u nt of hou rs as pe rson al ti m e. R od gers re c og n i zed the cal cul ati on t o be m i sta ken a nd r efused to si gn o ffo n i t, as di d m osto fhi s cr ew . The next day, M ar ch 1, the l i ai son tol d Rodgers thatFi tts wanted to m eetw ith h i m and hi s cr ew thatafternoon, m or e than an hour after Rodgers ’ s shi ft w as to end . Th e li ai son ask ed hi m to not i fy hi s cr ew , and Rodger s co ntacte d every m em ber he cou ld locate on site. B u t Rod gers h im se lf s k ip p ed th e m ee tin g b ec au se h e w as n ’t t old that i t was m andator y o r w hethero ver tim e had been appr o ve d f or h is a tt en dan ce . F i tt s ha d no a utho r i ty, s he ad m its, to order an e m p loyee to atten d an after-hou rs m ee tingw ithou t fi r sta ppr o vingo ve r ti m e, whi chs he had not done. F i tt s ca l l ed i n Ro dge r s fo r a no th ermeet i ng

— al so after hours but this ti m e with ove rt i m e a pp ro ved

— i n l ate M ar ch

. Ro tha l so was pr es en t, a nd Ro dge r s br o ug ht al ong a uni on r epres entat i ve. Duri ng the m eet i ng F i ttsN o. 10

- 3916 7 d e ma n d e d , a n d R o d g e r s r e l i n q u i s h e d , h i s o r i g i n a lt i me s l i ps fr o m D e c e mbe r, whi c h i nc l ud e d the fi l e s he had ove rl oo ked wh en he gave co pie s to Fi tts i n J anuary . This M ar ch m eet i ng was the l astti m e th at F itts as ked Ro dg e r s f o r r e c o r ds

. La t e r, a ft e r R o dg e r s h a d beenfi r e d, an i nd ependent audit orco ncl ud ed that hi s r ec or ds of the c re w ’ s o ver ti m e were accura te. A l thoug h this al l ege dly“inaccurat e r epor ti ng o fti m e” was o ne r ea so n g i ve n fo r Ro dge r s’ s di sc ha r g e, no othe r em plo yee i nvol ved i n the i nci den t w as pu ni shed so s ev er ely . Rus ci o l el l i, f o r hi s per ce i ve d r o l e i n the ti m eke epi ng probl em s a nd equi pm ent m i suse, was d em ot e d t o ya rd w ork. De ffenbau gh, the oth er crew sup ervi so r, was no t di sc i pl i ne d; dur i ngdi sc o ve r y F i tt s ex p lai ne d the d ifferent treat m en t by saying th a t Rod gers al one had f ai l ed to turn ove r al l of hi s re cor d s w hen ask e d, b utwh e n pr e s s e d s he a dmi t t e d tha ts he n eve r ask ed Deffenbaugh t o turn o verhi s r eco rd s. Fi tts had f ocuse d on R od gers and Ru sci ol el l i, she sai d, because they sent her i ncom ple te ti m e sl i ps, and she never th o ug htt o i nv es ti gate Deffenba ug h’ s r ec o r ds. Acco r di ng to the depar tm ent l i ai son, Deffen b augh’ s cr ew neve r prot est ed the departm ent’ s ca l cul ati ons ofthei r ti m e. The parti es describe on e m or e e vent that, tho ugh not gi v e n a s a r e a s o n f o r Ro dg e r s ’ s di s c ha r g e , do e s s how furtherfri cti on be tw een F i tts and Rodger s. H i sto ri cal l y, Ro dge r s ha d r ai se d a nd l o wer ed th e fl ago n t o p o fthe capi tolbui l ding w hen needed. That t askwas consi dered dan g er o us becau se o fthe l o ca ti o n o fthe fl ag po l e, a nd th u s e a r n e d h i m a n a n n u a ls t i p e nd. In Ap r i l2 0 0 6 , h o w-8 N o. 10

- 3916

eve r, Fi tts deci ded i n coo rdi nati on with the unio n to r o t a t e fl a gdu t y a mon gc r e w memb e r s wh o v o l un t e er e d, f o r a fi x e d r a t e p e r a s s i g n men t
. Wh e n th e t i me c a me to l ower the fl ag, the enti re cr ew , in c l ud i ng Rodger s, d eclined the tas k. Fitts threa ten ed to discip line Rod gers i fhe di dn ’ t volu n tee r, but she threa tened no one el se. Eventual l y, ano therem plo yee ag re ed to l owe r th e fl ag, an d R od ge rs av oid ed d isc ip lin e fo r h is re fu sa l. I n Ma y 2 0 0 6 F i t t s wr o t e a me mo r a n d u m t o R o th r e c o mm ending that Rodgers be fi re d. A s g ro und s forterm inati on, she ass er ted thatRodger s had ( 1) allow ed abuse o fs ta te e qui pm en t an d the n f ai l ed to c o o per at e wi ththe In sp ec to r G en er al’s inv es tig at ion, an d (2) im p ro p er ly re c or ded o ver ti m e a nd r efused to as si st her eff or t t o re cti fy th e probl em . Roth then s ent Ro dgers a l ett er l i sting f or m al charg es aga i nst hi m . That co m m unica ti on g o es wel lb ey o nd the c o nt en t o fF i tt s’ s m em or an dum and accuses Rodger s o f( 1) l ying about hi s know l edge o f t h e aerator m isuse an d the tem p orary em p loyee’s i nj ury, ( 2) al l owing the m isu se ofst ate equi pm ent, ( 3) i m prop er l y c om ple ti ng the Decem berti m e s l i ps eve n afte r th ey wer e r etur ne d to hi m f o r r ewo r k i ng, ( 4) bei ng “c om pli ci t with” Rusci ol el l ii n f ai l i ng to “a ccurately r epo r t an d r ec o r d” com pen sa to r y t i m e, a nd ( 5) s k i ppi ng the Mar c h mee t i nga nd n o tt e l l i ngh i s c r e w to a t t e nd

. Rodgers ’ s un i o n r e pr e s e nt a t i v e wr o t e a r ebutta l den y i ngthe cha r g es , a nd F i tt s r es po nde d tha t th e re buttall acke d evi d en ti ar y s up port
. Roth then fi re d Rodgers

. Rodgers fi l ed a g rievance chal l engi ng hi s di schar ge, an d the g r i ev an ce l ed to arbi tr at i o n. The a rbi tr at o r c o n-N o. 10

- 3916 9 cl ud ed that the S ecr eta ryo fS tat e’ s o ffi ce had f ai l ed to pr o du c e c l e a r a nd c o nv i nc i ng e v i de nc e o f a l l b uto ne o f the c harg es aga i nst Ro d ger s. ( The arbi tr ato r f aul ted Ro dge r s f o r no t at te ndi ng th e M ar ch 20 06 m ee ti ng a nd co nc l ude d tha t he s ho ul d ha ve g o ne t o the meet i nga nd then fil ed a g ri evance . Other w i se, tho ugh, the arbi tr ato r r ej ec te d ev ery ch ar g e l ev el ed ag ains t Ro dge r s. ) F o l l o wi ng arbi tr ati on, Rodger s was r ei nstat ed w i th bac k pay

. M eanw hi l e, Rod ge rs br ought thi s s uiti n the dist ri ct cour t a gainst the S ecr eta ryo f State under Ti tl e VI Io f th e C ivilRi ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U

. S. C. §§ 2000 e

–2000 e- 17, an d a g ains t F i tt s an d Ro thunde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 1 an d § 1 983. In m oving f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, the defendants ar gued that Rodger s had no dir ect evi dence ofdi scr i m i nati on a nd no ci rcum sta nti alev i de n ce o f su sp ici ou s tim ing or racial ly ch arged com m en tar y surro und i ng hi s t er m i nati on. They a l so conte nd ed that Rodgers co uld not p ro ve that anothe r si m i l ar l y s i tuate d empl o y e e h a d r e c e i v e d mo r e f a v o r ab l e t r e a t me nt because , i n thei r vi ew , no otherem plo yee had f aced as m an y ch arges of i m p rop er beh avior. I n opposi ng the m oti on, Rodger s a rgued that i nd eed he r ec ei ved w or se tr eat m ent than si m i l ar l y s i tuate d w h ite em p loy ee s. Inp a r t icu lar , he as se rt ed , Ru sc iole lli an d the wh i t e c r e w l e a de r, De ffe nb a ugh, we r e bo th t r e a t e d mo r e l e n i e n t l y d e s p i t e e n g a g i n gi n th e s a me alle ge d m isc on d u c t. T h ey , too , ha d p ar tic ip at ed in Tu r ne r ’ s o v e r t i me s y s t e m, b utR us c i o l e l l iwas de mot e d, not fi red , an d D effenbau gh w asn ’t even aske d to tu rn ove r hi s r eco rds for r evi ew . W hat’ s m or e, sa i d Rodgers ,10 N o. 10

- 3916 Rusci ol el l ihad bee n accuse d ofadop tin g a n “o pen d o o r ” p o l i c y f o r s t a t e e q u i p me n t, a n d y e tth e e qui pm en t pol i ci es ofD effe n baugh, hi s white subo rdi nate, were not e v e n e xa mi ne d. The dis tr i ct c ourt c oncluded that Rodge rs had f ai l ed to produce eno ugh evi dence to sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent. A ccor ding to the c ourt, Rod ge rs had no di re ct ev i den ce o f di sc r i m i na ti o n, no t ev en “s us pi ci o us t i m i ng ofev ents, am bi guous sta tem en ts m ade byRoth orFi tts , o r b e h a v i o r t o wa r d o r c o mme n t s d i r e c t e d a to th e r e mp loyees i n t h e prot ecte d group . ” M oreover, the cou rt re aso ned, Rodger s hadn’tpro ven that white em plo yee s r ecei ved sy st emat i ca l l y b et te r t r ea tment
. In f ac t, the c o ur ts a i d, R o dg e r s h a d n o ts ho wn that any sim ilar ly si tu at ed whi te e m pl o y ee r ec ei ve d b et te r t r ea tment tha n hi m. T hi s f ai l ur e a l o ne , the c o ur tc o nt i nu e d, doom ed R odger s’ s a tte m pt to sho w di scr i m i nati on us i ngthe i ndi r ec t m etho d es tabl i sh ed i n M cD onnell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 411 U .S

. 792 (1973). T he cou rt ac ce pte d the pr emi se tha t Ro dge r s was sim il ar l y s i tu
at ed to Ru sci o l el l ia nd De ffenba ug h in r eg ar d t o the ti m eke epi ng i ssue. The co urt re as on ed , however, that Ro dge r s was r equi r ed to i den ti fy a c o wor k erwho was “ si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed regardi ngb o thr ea so ns f o r the te r m i na ti o n. ” I n co nc l udi ng th at Ro dge r s ha d no t d o ne so , the c o ur t o ve rlo o k ed Ro dge r s’ s co nt en ti o n tha t he al so was s i m i l ar l y s itua te d t o b o thRus ci o l el l ia nd Deffenbaugh co ncer ni ng the m isuse ofst ate pro perty
. The cour t decl i ned to add re ss the o therel em ents of the i nd i r e c tme tho d.N o. 10

- 3916 11 II . A n alysis I n ch all en ging th e g ran t of su m m ary j ud gm en t, R od gers a r gu e s th a th e p r o d u c e d s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e o fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n u n d e r b o th th e d i r e c tan d i n d i r e c tme th o d s . We di s a g r e e ab o utthe di r e c tme tho d. R o dg e r s c o nt e nd s th at ce rt ain “b its an d p iec es ” of cir c u m st an tia l ev idence

— i ncl ud i ng thathe was the o nl y b l ack m em bero f hi s cr ew , t h at an arbi tr ato r deter m i ned that he was fi re d w i thou t j ust ca use, and that he al one w as or dered to l ower the fl ag

— r ai se a n infer en ce o fdi sc r i m inatory i ntent. H i s a rgu m ent i s unpers uasi ve, however, bec ause th e evide nc e d oes not point directly to a discrim in atory re aso n f or hi s ter m i nati on, as i t m u st
. S ee Va n A ntw erp v. C ity of Peoria, Ill

. , 627 F.3d 295 , 298 (7th C ir. 2010); P etts v. Rock l e dgeFu r ni t ureLL C, 53 4 F

. 3d 715, 72 0 (7t h Cir

. 20 08)

. H e a l so conte nd s that the defendants syste m aticall y treated w hite em p loyees m ore favorabl y. A l though, as we disc uss l ate r, Rodger s doe s hav e evi dence thatRusci ol el l i and D effenbaugh r ecei ved bet ter tr eat m ent, thi s e vi dence f al l s s hor t o fsho w i ng tha t white empl o y ees r ec ei ve d b et te r t r ea tmento n a r egul ara nd re p ea te d ba sis
. SeeSil ver m a n v . B d

. of Educ. of City of C hi. , 637 F.3d 729, 734 & n.2 ( 7th Cir. 2011). Rodg er s’s str onge r ar gum ent r el i es on the i nd i re ct m et h od of p ro vin g d isc rim in at ion, w h ich ap p lies eq u ally to disc ri m i nati on cl ai m s und erTi tl e VI I, § 1981 , and § 1 983. SeeEg onm w an v. C ookCnty. She ri ff ’s D ep’t, 60 2 F

. 3d 845, 85 0 n. 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. To su rvi ve s um m ar y j udg m en t u n der thi s m etho d, a pl ai nti ffm ust pro du ce e vi dence th a th e ( 1 ) b e l o n g s to a p r o t e c t e d c l a s s , ( 2 ) me th i s e m-12 N o. 10

- 3916 plo yer ’ s l egi ti m ate p er f or m ance expectati ons, ( 3) suffer ed an ad ver se em plo ym ent acti on, and ( 4) was tr eat ed w or se than si m i l arl y s i tuate d em plo yee s o utsi de the prot ecte d c las s. M cDonne l l D ougl as , 411 U .S

. at 80 2; Egonm wan , 60 2 F. 3d at 85 0. I f th e pl aint i ff sa ti sfi es th es e el emen ts, he m us t the n p rove th at an y le g itim ate, non d iscrim inatory re aso ns o ffer ed f orthe advers e a cti on ar e pr ete xt. M c Don n e l l Do u g l as , 4 1 1 U .S. at 8 02 , 804 ; Egonm wan , 60 2 F. 3d at 85 0. B ecau se the fi r sta nd thi r d e l ement s o fthe pr i ma f a c i e c a s e a r e un c o nt e s t e d, Ro dg e r s f o c us es on showing that he per f or m ed hi s j ob sat i sf acto rily and ye t w as tr eat ed m or e har shl y than hi s white co unterpar ts. W hen a bl ack em plo yee pro du ces evi dence thathe was di sc i pl i ne d m ore se ve r ely tha n whi te e m pl o y ee s who shar ed si m i l ar shor tco m i ngs, the seco nd and four th ele m en ts of th e in d ire c t m et h od m er ge . SeeL u st er v. Ill

. D ep’t o f C o rr. , N o. 09

- 4066 , 20 11 W L 28572 62, at* 3 ( 7th C ir. Ju ly 1 9, 20 11 ); Web erv. U nivs. Rese arch Ass ’n, Inc. , 62 1 F.3 d 58 9, 59 4 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); E lkha t i b v. D un k in D o nu ts, Inc. , 493 F.3d 82 7, 8 31 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); A da m s v. Wa l-M a rt Store s, Inc. , 324 F.3d 935 , 940 (7t h C ir. 2003 ). Em p loyers “ca nn ot inten tionally d iscipli ne poor em p loyees m ore seve re l y o n the basi s o fr ace. ” Lu ster, 20 11 W L 28572 62, at *3. T h u s, R od ge rs m ad e o u t a p rim a fa c ie c a s e i fh is evi dence w ou ld es tabl i sh thatthe defe nd ants extended l en i en cyt o s i m i l ar l y s i tuated w hi te e m pl o y ee s who e n ga ge d in s im ilar co n d u c t. SeeElkh atib , 49 3 F

. 3d at 831; A d a ms , 324 F.3d at94 0. T h e s im ilar ly sit u at ed an aly sis re quir es a fl exibl e, co m m on- sense i nquir y th at ask s “w hetherthe othe r em ploye es’ si tuati ons w er e s i m i l ar en ou g h to th e p lain tiff’s th at it is re as on ab le t o in fer , inN o. 10

- 3916 13 th e absenc e o fs o m e o th ere xpl an at i o n, tha t th e d i ffe r e n tt r e a t me n tw a s a r e s ul t o fr a c e o r s o me othe r unlawfulbasi s. ” Lu ster, 20 11 W L 28572 62, at* 3; s e eM cGowan v. D e e r e& Co. , 58 1 F

. 3d 575, 57 9-80 ( 7th C ir. 2009); Elkh atib , 49 3 F

. 3d at 831. Thr o ug ho utthi s l i ti g at i o n Ro d ger s ha s dev o te d the m o sta tt en ti o n t o De ffenba ug h, s i nc e th eys ha r e th e sam e j o b t i t l e . Bu tR o dg e r s a l s o ma de o uta s t r o ngc ase that the defendants unf ai rl y focuse d on hi s per cei ved shor tco m i ngs a nd d iscipl i ned him m or e s eve re l y than R us ciol ell i, and Ru sc io lel li ’s statu s as Rod gers’s sup ervi so r d o e s n o td i mi n i s h th e s t r e n g th o fth i s c o mpa r i s o n. M an y tim es w e h a v e ackn ow ledge d that sup ervisors us ua l l y make po o r c o m par at o r s f o r pl aint i ff s cl ai m i ng em p loy m en t d isc rim in at ion
. E.g
. , P a tterson v. Ind . New spa pers, Inc ., 58 9 F .3d 35 7, 36 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); B urk s v. Wis. D ep’t o f Tran sp ., 46 4 F .3d 7 44 , 7 51 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); Patt e rs on v. Ave ry Denn i s on Corp ., 281 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2002). Bu t usual l y doe s no t m ea n al w ays , and w e hav e no t hel d that a superv i sori s nev era n a pt co m par at o r . Sup ervi sor s typi cal l y m ake unrea l i sti c co m parat or s be cause, as re l evantto the i ssues in a part i cul arcas e, em plo yee s ofhi gherr ank c om m onl y hav e di ffer ent j ob du ti es or p e r f o rm an c e s ta n d ar d s. E.g
. , Burks , 464 F.3d at75 1; Keri v. Bd . o f Trs . of Pur dueU ni v. , 45 8 F

. 3d 620, 62 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ); Ajayi v. Aram ark B us. Se rv s., Inc. , 33 6 F

. 3d 520, 53 2- 33 ( 7th Ci r . 2 003). And e spe ci al l y i n s i tu at i o ns w here the pla i nt iffal l ege s di scr i m i natory pr om oti onal pr ac ti ce s, i t i s di ffi cul t f o r the pl aint i ffto s ho w tha t he deser ved to be prom ote d overan e m plo yee o fa hi gher ra n k, w h o u su ally p os se ss es m or e e x p er ien c e. E.g
. , H uds on14 N o. 10

- 3916

v. Chi

. Tr ans i tAut h. , 375 F.3d 5 5 2 , 561 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ; Patt e rs on , 281 F.3d at68 0; Hof f m an- D om b r owsk iv. Arl i ngt on Int ’ l Race co urs e, Inc . , 254 F. 3d 644, 651 ( 7 t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Yet w he n u ne ven discip line i s the basis fora c laim o fdi scr i m i nati on, the m ost
- re l evantsi m i l ar i ti es ar e tho s e b e t we e n the e mpl o y e e s ’ a l l e g e d mi s c o nd uct, p erform an ce stand ard s, an d d iscipli nin g s up ervisor. S ee Weber, 62 1 F

. 3d at 594; Amrh e i n v . He a l t h Ca r e Se r v. Corp

. , 54 6 F

. 3d 854, 86 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ; H um phr i e s v. C B O C S Wes t, Inc. , 474 F. 3d 387, 404-05 ( 7th C ir. 2 007); A d a ms , 32 4 F

. 3d at 940; S n i pes v . Ill. D ep’t o f C o rr. , 29 1 F.3 d 4 60 , 463 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ); Raduev. Ki m b e r l y- Clark Corp. , 21 9 F

. 3d 61 2, 6 17

- 18 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)

. For m alj o b ti tl es a nd ra nk ar e no t di sposi ti ve; an e m plo yercannot “insul ate i ts el ffr o m c l ai m s o fr ac i aldi sc r i m i na ti o n” b y making for m alis tic d ist in c tio n s b et w ee n e m p loy ee s. Johns on v. Zema Sys

. Corp. , 1 7 0 F .3 d 734, 743 (7th Cir. 1999); s e eGorzyns kiv. Je t b l ueAi rways Corp. , 596 F.3d 93 , 109 n .7 (2d Cir. 2010); Le e v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co. , 574 F

. 3d 253, 26 0- 61 (5t h C ir. 20 09 ); F i l ar v. Bd. of Edu c . of Ci ty of C hi. , 52 6 F.3 d 1054, 10 61- 62 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08); Bo u me h d iv . Pl a s t ag Hol di ngs, LL C, 48 9 F

. 3d 781, 79 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07); B ella ver v. Q uan ex C orp. , 20 0 F

. 3d 485, 49 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. Thus, w hen a pla i nti ff and hi s s up er vi sorwere accused o f m aking si m i l arm i sta kes , w ere e qually r esponsibl e for av o iding tho se mis ta k es , a nd wer e di sc i pl i ne d b y the s a me s u p e r i o r, th e p l a i n t i ffc a n ma k e a r e a l i s t i c c o mpar i so n wi thhi s su per visorf o r pur po se s o fe st ab l i sh i ng a p rim a fa c ie c as e o f d isc rim in at ion
. See Fi l ar, 52 6 F. 3d at 1062 ( com pari ng plain tiffto em plo yee s with m ore seniority, w he n sen iori ty statu s w as d iscretionary);N o. 10

- 3916 15 La them v. D ep’t o

f C hil dren & Yo uth Servs. , 17 2 F. 3d 786, 79 3 ( 11th Cir . 1 999) ( com pari ng pl ai nti ffto di re ct s up er vi sor ac c u se d of sa m e m isc on d u c t); Johns on , 17 0 F

. 3d at 743- 44 (com p aring tw o i nt erm ed iate m an agerial em p loyees). The defe nd ants concede that the differ ence i n tr eat
m en t b et w ee n R od ge rs a n d R u sc iole lli w as “p re tt y b ig,” an d th ey d o nott r y t o di st i ng ui shthe t wo men o n the ba si s o f r a n k

. I n s t e a d , e c h o i n g th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t, t he defe nd ants ass er t that Rodge rs m ade m or e m i sta kes and e ngage d in a gr eat er degre e of m i sco nd uc t t han Ru s c i o l e l l ia n d , o n th a tb a s i s , s t a n d s a p a r t
. E mb r a c i ng th i s pr emi se , ho wev er, woul d r equi r e us t o di sr eg ar d the evi dence pres ented atsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Ind eed, j ust r ea di ngthe rea son s F i tt s an d Ro thg av e f o r fi r i ng Rodgers i s e nough to d isp elany noti on that Rodge rs was ac c u se d of m or e-s er iou s s h or tc om in gs th an R u sc iole lli. To st ar t, we are at a lo ss to underst and the defendants’ insi st en ce o n b r an di ngRo dge r s m o r e bl amewor thy th an Rus ci o l el l if o r the a er at o r i nc i den t. W ha t th e evi dence shows is t h at Fi tts and Roth r el i ed enti re l y o n th e I ns p ector G en eral’s rep ort in con clud ing tha t Rod gers h ad allow ed st at e p ro p er ty to b e u s ed for p riv at e g ain a nd the n, wh e n thi s “ o pe n do o r ” p o l i c y wa s que s t i o ned, tr i ed to ev ade r esponsibi li ty by l yi ng to i nvest i gat or s. Bu t i fthe defe nd ants’ as sum pti on about Rodgers was si n c er e, how coul d they have vi ew ed Rusci ol el l ias l ess c u l p ab l e ? T h e In s p e c t o r G e n e r a l ’ s i n f o r ma t i o n c a me from a si ng le em p loyee w ho ac cu sed both Rod gers and R us c i o l e l l io fe nd o r s i ngp r i v a t e u s e o fs t a t e e qu i pmen t, a nd both m en deni ed the a c cusati on. The Inspector16 N o. 10

- 3916 G en eral did not exon erate R us ciol ell i, and since h e sup ervi sed Rodgers , the sensibl e concl usi on w oul d b e that Rus ci o l el l ib o r e th e g r ea te r r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r a do pting a m i sgui ded pol i cy ofal l owing m ai ntenan c e w or ker s t o bor ro w st ate-ow ned equipm ent. The defendants have neverco ntended that th ey legi ti m ate l y hel d Rodgers to a hi g he r s ta nda r d tha n Ru sc i o l el l iv i s- à- vi s e nf o r cing l eg i ti m at e equi pm en t po l i ci es , an d y et Rus ci o l el l i, the one w i th the gr eat erautho ri ty to enf or ce o r al tertho se pol i ci es, was dem ot ed , wh i l e Rodge rs was fi re d. M or eove r, i t i s s peci ous t o rej oi n, as the de fendants do, that Rodgers was l ess co oper ati ve w i th the I nspector General ’ s invest i gat i on than Rusci ol el l i
. The defendants demote d Rus ci o l el l ii n pa r t be ca us e th eyb el i ev ed th e al l ega ti on that the “o pen door ” pol i cy had his blessing, w hi ch Rusci ol el l ifl atl y deni ed w hen i nter vi ew ed by i nves t i g a tor s. S o the defendants nece ssa ri l y c oncl ud ed that Rusci ol el l i, l i ke Rodgers , had l i ed du ring th e Inspector General ’ s probe , and ye t they g ave no r eas on f or tr eat i ng Rusci ol el l i ’ s di shones ty m or e le ni entl y than Rodgers ’ s. Even m or e per ple xi ng i s the defendants ’ co ntenti on th a tR o d g e r s s h o u l d r e c e i v e th e l i o n ’ s s h a r e o fth e b l a me f orthe perce i ved t i m eke epi ng probl em s. The defendants insist tha t Rod gers w as d isc ipli ne d , not for using th e “off th e bo o k s” m eth o d o fr ec o r di ngc o m pen sa to r y t i m e, b ut f o r k ee pi ngt i m e r ec o r ds whi chF i tts an d Ro ththo ug ht w er e incom ple te and i naccurat e. O nce a gain, tho ugh, how d oes thatbel i ef, i fsincer e, di ffer enti ate Rodger s fro m Rusci ol el l i ? I fwe bl i nd o urse l ves to t h ei r actualj ob du ti es, then, atm ost, Rodger s s hare d r esp onsibi l i ty f orN o. 10

- 3916 17 th e p er c eiv ed p ap er w or k e rro rs , sin c e h e a n d R u sc iole lli j o i n t l y s u b mi t t e d th e D e c e mb e r t i me s l i p s t o F i t t s a l o ng wi thRo dge r s’ s su ppo r tingdoc um en ta ti o n. The de fen dan ts, tho ug h, ha ve ne ve r e xpl aine d ho w ti m ek ee pi ng er r o r s ev en co nc erned Rodger s. A s R u sci ol el l im ake s cl eari n an affi davi t, ti m eke epi ng and at tend ance re c or d s w er e s ole ly his r esponsibi l i ty. R odger s had as s i s t e d wi th t i mek e e pi ng, a du t y o ut s i de o f hi s j ob descri pti on, as a f avo r so that Rus c iole l l iwould have m or e t i m e t o f ocus on o therm att er s. The defendants, th en, are effectively m aintain ing tha t the y fi red Rod gers f orpoor l y per f or m i ng a tas k that was not a l eg itim ate e mp l o y me n te x p e c t a t i o n, w h i l e r e t a i n i n gth e w h i t e e mp loyee w hos e j ob it w as to p erform that very task. Rod gers wa s a v o l un t e e r, a nd the de fe nd ants c a nn o th i de behi nd the pretense that they did notkno w the du ti es of a p o s i t i o n the y c r e a t e d. W ha t’ s m o r e, whenDe ffenba ug h i s ad ded to the m i x, the expla nati on that s l oppy r eco rdkee ping w as a pri nci pal r eas on f orfi ring Rodger s i s e ven m or e s uspect. D effenbaugh al so used Turner’ s “ offthe boo ks” ti m eke epi ng m etho d, but the o nl y r eas on Fi tts ga ve f or no tr e v i e wi ngh i s r e c o r ds

— ev en aft er sh e p er so n ally i nstr ucted hi m to st op usi ng T u rner ’ s s yst em

— i s that Rod ge rs drew her att enti on byte nd er i ng hi s r eco rds. That expl anat ion i s no answer a t a l l ; Rodger s t endered h is r eco rds o nl y b ecause he was di re cted t o do so by F i tt s, who di d no t m ake th e sa m e demand o fDe ffen ba ug h. It is no s ur pr i se , the n, tha t m i st ak es wer e f o und on ly in R od ge rs ’s re c or d s, s in c e h is w er e t h e o n ly r ec o r ds revi ewe d. W e no te , ho wev er, tha t, a l th o ugh the18 N o. 10

- 3916 defe nd ants’ tr eat m ent o fD effenbaugh i s r el evantto o u r a n a l y s i s , R o d g e r s c o u l d n o th a v e e s t ab l i s h e d a p r i ma f aci e ca se ofdisc rim i nati on ba sed o n a c om pari son to Deffenbaugh a l one. Deffenbaugh, u n l i ke Rusci ol el l i, was no t di r ec tly a cc us ed o ff ai l i ngt o e nf o r ce e qui pm en t p o l i ci es , s o we c a n n o tr e a l i s t i c a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e th e t wo as shar i ng a “co m parabl e s et off ai l i ngs. ” See Haywood v. Lucent Tec h s., In c. , 323 F.3d 524 , 530 (7th C ir. 20 03 ); ac co r d L uc as v. P yraM ax Bank, FS B , 53 9 F

. 3d 661, 6 6 7 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Faas v. Se ars , Roe b uc k & C o. , 5 3 2 F

. 3d 63 3, 64 2-4 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Burks , 46 4 F

. 3d at 751. I n the end, o nl y Rodge rs ’s ab sence fro m the “m andatory” m ee tinga nd the a cc us at i o n tha t he f ai l ed to no ti fy hi s cr ew o fthatm eet i ng ar guabl y d ist i ngui sh hi m fro m Rusc i o l e l l i
. Bu t, a ta mi ni mum, the r e r e mai ns a ma t e ri al questi on o ff act about w hetherR odger s’ s a tte nd ance w as a legiti m atee m plo ym ent e xpectati on. The l i ai son w ho conta cted him abou t th e sam e-da y , after-hou rs m eet i ng di d not ind i cate thatFi tts had approve d ov er tim e, an d ye t F itt s h er se lf ha d m an d at ed t h at all o v e r t i me wa s t o b e p e r s o n a l l y a ppr o v e d b y h e r t wo d a y s i n a d v a n c e . An d th o u g h h e r a p p r o v a l o fo v e r t i me f orthe m ee tin g m i ght s eem i m pli ci t in herdeci si on t o schedule i t, Fi tts adm i tte d in her deposi ti on th at , i n f act, sh e ha d no a utho r i tyto orde r Ro dge r s to a tt en d the m eet i ng witho ut a gr ee i ng to pay hi m f orat tendi ng, w hich she h ad not d one . M oreover, as for Rod g e r s’s pu rpor t e d f a i l ur e t o i nfo r m hi s c r e w ab o utthe me e t i ng, he te sti fi ed, and the defe nd ants did notco ntra dict, that he s u c c eed ed i n tel l i ng al lbut one cre w m em ber

— who wa s n o ta two r ktha tda y

— ab ou t the i m prom ptuN o. 10

- 3916 19

m eet i ng, ev en tho ugh he w as gi ven o nl y a few hour s t o ac co m pl i shthe t ask

. S o m e o fthe c r ew mem be r s who kn ew ab ou t t h e m ee tin g d id n otat te n d , bu t, as far a s t h is record show s, th e d efend an ts p roce e d e d to fire R od gers w i thout havi ng anyf actualsupport f orthei r accusa ti on th athe f ai l ed to t el lthe abs en t cr ew mem bers abo ut the m eet i ng. For thes e reason s, w e are pe rsu ad ed t ha t Rod gers p re se n t e d en ou gh ev id en c e t h at h e w as sim ilar ly si tuate d to Rusci ol el l ito pro ve a pri m a f aci e ca se und er the ind i re ct m etho d. A nd o n thi s r eco rd , h is evi dence es tabl i sh i nga p ri m a f ac i e ca se a l so de fea ts the de fen d an ts’ clai m that their reason s for fi ring h im w ere n o n p r e t e x t u a l

. T h e a n a l y s i s o f th e p r i ma f a c i e c a s e an d p r et ex t o fte n ov er lap , e.g ., Ever r oad v. Sc ot tTr uc k S ys., Inc. , 604 F.3d 47 1, 47 7-7 8 ( 7 t h C i r. 20 10 ); Sc ruggs v . Ga rst Se e d Co. , 587F.3d 83 2, 83 8 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ); A delm a n-R eyes v. Sa i ntXavi e rU ni v. , 50 0 F

. 3d 662, 66 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , as they do her e. R od ger s, o fco urse , needed evi dence te n d i n gt o s h o w th a tth e d e fe n d a n t s ’ p r o ffe r e d r e as o ns for his ter m in ation w ere not j us t erroneou s, bu t w ere
“ ‘ f actual l y b aseles s, w er e no t the actual m oti vati on f or the di schar ge i n questi on, orwere i nsuffi ci ent t o mot i v a t e the di s c ha r g e . ’ ” G ordon v. U nite d Airli nes, Inc. , 24 6 F

. 3d 878, 88 8- 89 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( quoti ng Adr e aniv. Fi rs tCo l oni al Banks hare s Corp. , 154 F.3d 389 , 395 (7th C ir. 19 98 )); see H um ph ries , 474 F

. 3d at 407. R od ger s m et that bur denb y sho wi ngtha t the defen dan ts ’ pro ffer ed r ea so ns f orsingl i ng hi m o ut were all dis in g en uo us . A t sum m ary j ud gm ent Rodgers pro du ced evi dence that, exce pt for mi s s i n ga me e t i n g , Rus c i o l e l l ie n g a g e d i n th e s a me20 N o. 10

- 3916 al l ege d m i sco nd uct and co m m i tte d the s am e purpor ted re cor dkeepi ng m i sta kes and ye t r ecei ved onl y a d em oti o n. T he e v i de nc e a l s o s ho ws tha tthe de fe nd a nt s hou nd ed Rod gers, th e lone black em p loyee, abou t pu rpo r te d t im eke epinge r r o r s whi l e i g no r i ngb o thDe ffen ba ug h, who se r eco r ds wer e no t ev ene xa m i ne d, a nd R u sc iole lli, w h o a d m itt ed th at tim ek ee p in g w as so lely hi s r esp onsibi l i ty. A nd as f orthe M ar ch m eet i ng, F i tt s admi tted th ats he ha d no a utho r i tyt o de m an d att endance fro m Rodger s o r hi s s ubor dinat es, so that r ea so n fo r hi s te r m i nati o n, l i k e th e o th er s, i s “u nwor thy ofcr edence. ” See R eeves v. Sa nd erson P lum b i ng P rod s., Inc. , 530 U .S. 13 3, 14 3 (2 00 0); Tex. D ep’ tof Cm ty. A ffa irs v. Bur di ne, 450 U .S. 24 8, 25 6 (1 98 1). C on sid er in g a ll th is e vidence to gether, a j ury re aso nabl y c oul d concl ud e that th e a c tu al re as on th e d e f e n d an ts fired R od ge rs w as h is ra c e. Se e Has an v. Fo l ey & Lar dne rLL P , 552 F. 3d 520, 53 0- 31 (7 t h C ir. 20 08 ); R udin v. Lincol n Land C m ty. Co ll

. , 42 0 F

. 3d 712, 726-27 (7th C ir. 2005); Gor don , 246 F.3d at89 0-9 2. A ccor dingl y, the gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants i s v acated, and the case i s r em anded to th e d ist ric t c ou rtfor t ria l.

9- 2- 11