Opinion ID: 2754383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disciplinary Policy

Text: First, Hamilton claims that AVPM failed to follow its internal disciplinary policy when terminating her, and that this failure demonstrates the pretextual nature of the termination. Although an “employer’s failure to follow its own policies may be probative of discriminatory intent,” 25 we require discharged employees in discrimination cases to show, in addition, that they were treated differently from non-minority employees. 26 We insist on this additional evidence because “Title VII does not protect employees from the arbitrary employment practices of their employer, only their discriminatory impact.” 27 Hamilton offers no evidence suggesting that AVPM followed the internal disciplinary policy with non–African American employees and deviated from it in her case only. In fact, Englard stated that he also terminated three Caucasian property managers at AVPM-owned complexes for performance issues, none of whom received a written warning. Eaton testified to similar effect as to property managers under her supervision. Accordingly, AVPM’s failure to follow its internal disciplinary policy does not create a factual issue as to the falsity of its proffered reason for discharging Hamilton. 28