Opinion ID: 4036615
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarly-Situated Comparables

Text: To sufficiently demonstrate similarly-situated employees, plaintiffs must show that the proffered “comparables” are similar “in all respects.” Pohmer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14AP-429 2015 WL 1432546,  (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015) (internal quotation marks, No. 15-4398 O’Donnell, et al. v. City of Cleveland Page 10 citations, and emphasis omitted). In other words, the plaintiff must show that “all of the relevant aspects of his employment situation were ‘nearly identical’ to those of the [comparable employee’s] employment situation.’” Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins., 40 F.3d 796, 802 (6th Cir. 1994)). For example, the comparables “must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 1992)). To meet this requirement, the Plaintiffs here proffered a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which they compiled and which includes information about deadly force incidents, the officers involved, and the length of their assignment to restricted duty. The Plaintiffs complain that even though the Defendants did not dispute the information, the district court “took it upon itself to impeach” the report and undermine the statistics, violating the standard for reviewing a motion for summary judgment. Br. 44–45. The Plaintiffs argue that the spreadsheet demonstrates seven similarly situated African American police officers who were ordered to the Gymnasium after traumatic incidents for less time than they were. In Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400–01 (1986), the Supreme Court addressed the probative value of statistical information in Title VII discrimination cases: While the omission of variables from a regression analysis may render the analysis less probative than it otherwise might be, it can hardly be said, absent some other infirmity, that an analysis which accounts for the major factors “must be considered unacceptable as evidence of discrimination.” Normally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility. Importantly, it is clear that a regression analysis that includes less than “all measurable variables” may serve to prove a plaintiff’s case. A plaintiff in a Title VII suit need not prove discrimination with scientific certainty; rather, his or her burden is to prove discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252 (1981). Whether, in fact, such a regression analysis does carry the plaintiffs’ ultimate burden will depend in a given case on the factual context of each case in light of all the evidence presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant. However, as long as the court may fairly conclude, in light of all the evidence, that it is more likely No. 15-4398 O’Donnell, et al. v. City of Cleveland Page 11 than not that impermissible discrimination exists, the plaintiff is entitled to prevail. Id. In Lentz, we concluded that certain officers were similarly situated to the plaintiffs because they “participated in automobile-related shootings and received gym duty assignments while under investigation pursuant to the relevant Departmental procedures.” 333 F. App’x at 46. We find that the Plaintiffs’ proffered spreadsheet has serious infirmities that greatly undermine its credibility. First, it does not address all of the “relevant” aspects of the Plaintiffs’ employment situation. The spreadsheet contains the following columns: the date of the traumatic incident; the UDF report number; the officer involved; the level of the suspect’s injury; the race, sex, and age of the suspect; the date the officer was assigned to the Gymnasium; and the date the officer left restricted duty. Critically, the spreadsheet does not include information regarding, for example, who the officers’ supervisor was;; what type of investigation followed; a comparison of time spent on transitional duty; whether an officer requested to stay in the Gymnasium; or whether an officer was required to stay in the Gymnasium by medical officials. See Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352. It further fails to demonstrate the information that we suggested in Lentz— whether the Gymnasium assignment was pending the length of the subsequent investigation. Without these additional considerations, the probative value of this spreadsheet is greatly undermined.5 Second, the Plaintiffs claim that the spreadsheet shows that non-African American officers who used deadly force and killed African American suspects spent an average of 239.38 days on restricted duty. However, according to the spreadsheet, that is not true. That average is skewed by the inclusion of dates for which the Plaintiffs were detailed to transitional duty assignments. At oral argument, the Plaintiffs conceded that these dates should not have been included in the calculations. 5 For example, comparables’ average time on restricted duty is skewed by an outlier, an individual who spent only eight days assigned to the Gymnasium. Without additional information, it is hard to determine whether this individual is truly a comparable. No. 15-4398 O’Donnell, et al. v. City of Cleveland Page 12 Based on these infirmities, the district court did not err in finding the statistics insufficient to establish similarly-situated comparables. Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate this prong of the modified McDonnell Douglas standard. 2. Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason A Pretext For Discrimination Even if we were to assume that the Plaintiffs met their burden on the first prongs of the McDonnell Douglas standard, “the burden [then] shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.” Arnold v. City of Columbus, 515 F. App’x 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). If the defendants proffer such a reason, the burden returns to the plaintiffs to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by the employer were a pretext for discrimination.” Gribcheck v. Runyon, 245 F.3d 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2001). Pretext can be shown in one of three ways: “(1) that the proffered reason[] had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reason[] did not actually motivate the employer’s action, or (3) that [the reason was] insufficient to motivate the employer’s action.” Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). In explaining their legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their action, the Defendants rely on McGrath’s testimony. He stated that after the PTIP policy was complete, he ordered the officers to return to their home district on full duty but verbally instructed their commanding officers that they be assigned only transitional duties. When he discovered that they had been returned to full duty, contrary to his verbal orders, he ordered them back to restricted duty until the investigation was complete. McGrath states he discovered the Plaintiffs were not detailed to transitional duties as a result of a conversation in his office. The Plaintiffs claim that McGrath’s excuse for returning them to the Gymnasium—that he “discovered” that they had been returned to full duty in violation of his verbal orders that they were to remain on transitional duty—was a pretext for discrimination. Instead, they claim that they were subsequently, and wrongfully, ordered to the Gymnasium until the prosecutor’s review was complete as a result of a media inquiry about their employment status. The Plaintiffs cite a news article as well as testimony suggesting that written orders returning officers to full duty accompanied by verbal orders that they be assigned to transitional duty was unusual. No. 15-4398 O’Donnell, et al. v. City of Cleveland Page 13 The Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on this claim. The same day that the Plaintiffs were ordered to the Gymnasium for a second time, 19 Action News posted an article online about the Plaintiffs’ employment status. The Plaintiffs argue that this shows that McGrath acted based on racial tensions in the community and the media inquiry—not based on a discovered mistake. However, the news article states that it originally reported that the officers had returned to full duty in June, about four months prior McGrath’s order that they return to restricted duty. The article then states that McGrath has now decided that that decision was inappropriate. Accordingly, he ordered the Plaintiffs “off the streets until a county prosecutor decides on any criminal charges.” R. 54-15, PageID #672. R. 5. Nothing in the article suggests or implies that it was as the result of a media inquiry that McGrath moved the officers to restricted duty; it only reports McGrath’s decision to assign the officers involved in the Russell/Williams shooting to restricted duty. There is also nothing in the article that indicates that McGrath’s decision was based on the Plaintiffs’ race. If anything, the article undermines those arguments. It pointedly states that it had previously reported the Plaintiffs’ status, and it explains that McGrath decided to order the Plaintiffs to be assigned to restricted duty until all investigations were complete. Additionally, the Plaintiffs argue that it was unusual for McGrath to issue a written order indicating the Plaintiffs were to return to full duty while verbally ordering them to maintain transitional duties. They also argue that it was unreasonable for five months to pass before McGrath realized that his orders were compromised. However, they fail to point to any evidence that this did not, in fact, happen this way.6 For example, they could have deposed Calvin Williams, the officer who received the verbal order from McGrath regarding the Plaintiffs’ duty status, but they did not. Without any contrary evidence to McGrath’s assertions, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that his decision to keep the Plaintiffs or transitional duty until the 6 As the Defendants point out in their brief, even if the Plaintiffs could show discrimination, they would have to contend with the honest belief doctrine. The honest belief doctrine dictates that “[i]f the employer had an honest belief in the proffered basis for the adverse employment action, and that belief arose from reasonable reliance on the particularized facts before the employer when it made the decision, the asserted reason will not be deemed pretextual, even if it was erroneous.” Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, 766 F.3d 580, 596 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2009)). No. 15-4398 O’Donnell, et al. v. City of Cleveland Page 14 outcome of the prosecutor’s investigation was a pretext for discrimination against them based on their race. See Chen, 580 F.3d at 400. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ discrimination claim fails.