Opinion ID: 2997428
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discriminatory Discipline

Text: Jordan also argues she was being unlawfully discriminated against when she was disciplined on three separate occasions, outlined in detail above, for: (a) wearing a head covering after being warned not to on May 12, 2000; (b) being absent from work without leave on or about May 25, 2000; and (c) allegedly disclosing confidential information to the mother of a client sometime prior to May 26, 2000. The district court found that because Jordan failed to identify a similarly situated employee outside her class who was treated more favorably, the City’s motion for summary judgment was warranted as to this element of her claim as well. We agree. In order for Jordan to successfully claim that she was disciplined for a prohibited discriminatory reason she must establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was meeting her employer’s legitimate work expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that other, similarly situated, substantially younger, male employees were treated more favorably. See Grayson, 317 F.3d at 817-18; Franzoni v. Hartmarx Corp., 300 F.3d 767, 771-72 (7th Cir. 2002) (ADEA). In her brief, Jordan briefly addresses why she believes she has satisfied most of the elements of a prima facie case for discrimination, but she has overlooked one very important factor: she has failed to supply us with an example of a similarly situated 16 No. 03-3772 employee outside of her protected class who was treated differently.8 The only person that Jordan identifies who might be considered a similarly situated employee is Carey. However, on a number of occasions this court has made it clear that in order to be considered similarly situated an employee must be “directly comparable in all material respects.” Hudson v. Chicago Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552, 561 (7th Cir. 2004), accord Patterson v. Avery Dennision Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2002). “This court does not sit as a superpersonnel department that re-examines an entities business decisions.” Dale v. Chicago Tribune Co., 797 F.2d 458, 464 (7th Cir. 1986). Carey was promoted to acting supervisor of the Health Clinic on or about March of 2000, prior to any of the alleged incidents of discrimination described by Jordan (which begin with her being disciplined a number of times two months later in May of 2000). Therefore, because Carey was her superior at all times relevant to this facet of Jordan’s claim, and because we have held that Carey’s promotion was not itself an act of discrimination, Carey cannot be considered to be “similarly situated” and Jordan’s claim must fail. See Ajayi v. Aramark Business Servs., Inc., 336 F.3d 520, 531-32 (7th Cir. 2003).9 8 Instead, Jordan extolls her virtues as an employee, points to three other older women in the Health Clinic whom she believes were discriminated against and eludes to Carey receiving the promotion in her place as based on a prohibited amicus, while downplaying her repeated insubordination and violation of work rules. However, other examples of alleged discrimination are superfluous to building a prima facie case and Carey cannot be considered a similarly situated employee under Title VII and the ADEA. 9 Furthermore, even if we were to assume that Jordan had made out a prima facie case for discrimination, the City would still be (continued...) No. 03-3772 17