Opinion ID: 2994941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Logan’s Claim of

Text: Sex Discrimination Under Title VII Logan claims that Caterpillar unlawfully discharged him because of his sex in violation of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e et seq. Because Logan has provided no direct evidence of sex discrimination, he must proceed under the burdenshifting approach articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under the McDonnell-Douglas approach, Logan must first establish that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was meeting his employer’s legitimate performance expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was treated less favorably than similarly situated females. See Simpson v. Borg-Warner Co., 196 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 1999). If Logan can successfully show each of these elements, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination is created and the burden of production shifts to the defendants to present evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Logan’s dismissal. See id. Evidence of a non-invidious reason for the termination will then shift the burden back to Logan to show that the articulated reason is actually a pretext for discrimination. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993); Simpson, 196 F.3d at 876. The district court found that Logan was unable to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination because he could not show that he was treated less favorably than any similarly situated female employee. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). We find that the district court correctly determined that Logan did not establish that he was treated more harshly than a similarly situated female employee. Logan contends that Caterpillar did treat a similarly situated female--Watta--more favorably. This argument is clearly without merit. Caterpillar gave three reasons for Logan’s dismissal: (1) his abuse of the company e-mail system; (2) his failure to obey Arbogast’s directive not to contact Watta; and (3) his harassment of Caterpillar employees Watta and Rueschhoff. The fact that Watta was guilty of one of these infractions--abuse of the e-mail system--does not render her similarly situated to Logan. Logan urges us not to consider Caterpillar’s second reason because there is an issue of fact as to whether Arbogast instructed him to stay away from Watta or merely to keep his work life separate from his personal life. We need not address this argument because it is clear that Watta and Logan were not similarly situated with respect to Caterpillar’s third reason for firing Logan--his harassment of fellow employees. Logan argues that Watta was also a harasser; he claims that she harassed him by falsely reporting the incidents in question. Even if correct, this would not show that Watta and Logan were similarly situated for the purposes of a prima facie case of sex discrimination. If we were to put aside Watta’s reports to Arbogast and Knapp, it is still undisputed that Caterpillar received telephone calls from two different police officers reporting incidents of harassment. It received no similar reports with regard to Watta. Thus, we agree with the district court that Logan has failed to show that he was treated less favorably than any similarly situated female employee. Even if Logan had established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, Caterpillar has met its burden to demonstrate a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for Logan’s termination. Caterpillar made the decision to fire Logan only after it had gathered substantial evidence that Logan had violated company policy and engaged in criminal activity. Much of the evidence that Caterpillar relied on came directly from Logan’s interview with Knapp and Wendling. Because Caterpillar has articulated a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Logan, the burden shifts back to Logan to show that Caterpillar’s purported reason is pretextual. Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., 176 F.3d 971, 983 (7th Cir. 1999). In this context, pretext is defined as a lie, specifically a phony reason for some action. See Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 51 F.3d 64, 68 (7th Cir. 1995). Pretext may be established directly by showing that the employer was more likely than not motivated by a discriminatory reason, or indirectly by presenting evidence that the employer’s explanation is not credible. Jackson 176 F.3d at 984 (citations omitted). If a plaintiff does not have direct evidence of pretext, he may show pretext indirectly by presenting evidence that (1) defendant’s explanation for the adverse job action had no basis in fact; (2) the explanation was not the real reason for the adverse job action; or (3) the reason given was insufficient to warrant the adverse job action. See Bahl v. Royal Indem. Co., 115 F.3d 1283, 1291 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Logan attempts to establish pretext by showing that Caterpillar security personnel took a less than neutral approach to their investigation of him in which they accepted evidence against Logan at face value while ignoring contrary evidence. He claims that Knapp and Wendling should have know that his admissions were less than reliable and that they should have conducted a more thorough investigation into the actions surrounding his termination. Logan ignores the fact that, in determining whether Caterpillar’s stated reasons for Logan’s dismissal are pretextual, our task is not to second guess Caterpillar’s investigative process, but only to decide whether he was discharged for a discriminatory reason. See Giannopoulos v. Brach & Brock Confections Inc., 109 F.3d 406, 410 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). [W]hen an employer articulates a reason for discharging the plaintiff not forbidden by law, it is not our province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason for the plaintiff’s termination. Id. at 411. Caterpillar gave three reasons for terminating Logan; he disputes two of them--contacting Watta contrary to Arbogast’s directive and harassing Watta and Rueschhoff. In order to show pretext, however, [i]t is not enough for the plaintiff to simply assert that the acts for which [ ]he was terminated did not occur. Billups v. Methodist Hosp. of Chi., 922 F.2d 1300, 1304 (7th Cir. 1991). He must provide some evidence that the employer did not honestly believe the reasons given for his discharge. See Debs v. Northeastern