Opinion ID: 1389987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarly Situated Individuals Were Treated More Favorably Than Peirick

Text: Peirick offers three individuals as similarly situated employees: men's soccer coach Steve Franklin; men's tennis coach Richard Lord; and men's and women's golf coach John Andrews. IUPUI contends they are not valid comparators because they had different classifications or engaged in misconduct different in degree or kind than Peirick. To assess whether two employees are similarly situated, a court must look at all relevant factors, the number of which depends on the context of the case. Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 617 (7th Cir.2000). [I]n disciplinary casesin which a plaintiff claims that he was disciplined by his employer more harshly than a similarly situated employee based on some prohibited reasona plaintiff must show that he is similarly situated with respect to performance, qualifications, and conduct. Id. (internal citations omitted). Typically this involves showing that the employees shared the same supervisor, performance standards, and engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them. Id. at 617-18. That said, [o]ur similarly situated requirement `should not be applied mechanically or inflexibly.' Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781, 791 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Hull v. Stoughton Trailers, LLC, 445 F.3d 949, 952 (7th Cir.2006)). IUPUI first contends that Peirick was an hourly employee and that as such, she may only be compared with other hourly employees. Since Richard Lord and Steve Franklin were appointed employees during most or all of their employment, IUPUI insists that Peirick may only compare herself to golf coach John Andrews. Andrews, IUPUI continues, was not similarly situated because he did not engage in any termination-worthy conducthis only infractions being a few insubstantial NCAA rule violations. But IUPUI is only partly right. We agree with IUPUI that Peirick was an hourly employee. Although Peirick received annual letters of appointment, retirement benefits, never punched a time clock or received overtime pay, under IUPUI policy, these facts are not inconsistent with being an hourly employee. And Human Resources paperwork demonstrates quite clearly that throughout her tenure Peirick was designated an hourly employee. But we are not convinced that the hourly and appointed designations (which are only noted in HR files) influenced the Department's treatment of its coaches or should bear upon our similarly situated analysis. In fact, Moore routinely disregarded the hourly and appointed designations. At his deposition, Moore testified that he gave progressive discipline to employees he considered valuable, without regard to their employment classification. Underscoring this point is the fact that the hourly versus appointed distinction was not understood by members of the Athletics Department. At the time of his deposition, Moore was fairly cloudy as to when employees are entitled to progressive discipline. When asked if he knew whether the Athletics Department had a policy of progressive discipline, he said, I believe there is one in place for certain classes of employees through the university. At other points in his deposition, Moore explained that in determining an employee's entitlement to progressive discipline, the relevant distinction is the part-time versus full-time classification. For example, Moore testified that he gave coach Franklin, who was accused of verbally abusing members of the men's soccer team, the benefit of progressive discipline because he felt that was how he was supposed to treat a full-time professional employee. Likewise, at her deposition, O'Grady recalled speaking with LaVonne Jones of Human Resources about the significance of part-time versus full-time employment. According to O'Grady, Jones said that the progressive discipline policy and procedure did not apply to a part-time employee; that we were not required to go through the progressive discipline process with a part-time position. But O'Grady did not know what document would inform a coach that part-time and full-time employees are treated differently when it comes to progressive discipline. In fact, no such document exists, because the relevant distinction is between hourly and appointed, not part-time and full-time, employees. Given the considerable misunderstanding regarding the employee classifications, and Moore's practice of providing progressive discipline to valuable employees, we doubt that the Athletics Department took heed of employee classifications when doling out sanctions. We will not give the hourly versus appointed distinction more importance than IUPUI did. So, in the context of this case, we consider whether Peirick and the three male coaches were similarly situatedthough only Andrews was an hourly employee during his entire tenure. All three coaches were judged according to the same performance standards, were supervised by Moore, and had spotty performance histories. Yet only Peirick was terminated without the benefit of progressive discipline. The central question for our review, then, is whether Peirick and her colleagues engaged in similar misconduct, but received dissimilar treatment. Of course, employees may be similarly situated to the plaintiff even if they have not engaged in conduct identical to that of the plaintiff. [T]he law is not this narrow; the other employees must have engaged in similar not identicalconduct to qualify as similarly situated. Ezell v. Potter, 400 F.3d 1041, 1050 (7th Cir.2005). In Ezell, we concluded that the plaintiff, a mail carrier accused of taking an unauthorized extended lunch, and his colleague, a mail carrier who had lost a piece of certified mail, were similarly situated. Id. Taking a common sense view, we reasoned that in the postal service, whose sole function is to ensure to delivery of mail, [m]isplacing certified mail, that is, mail that has been designated as especially important by its sender, would seem to be a serious matter. Id. Further, given that another carrier had been fired for delaying mail delivery, we inferred that losing mail would also be a serious offense, at least as serious as taking a long lunch. Id. As reflected in Ezell, in deciding whether two employees have engaged in similar misconduct, the critical question is whether they have engaged in conduct of comparable seriousness. See Little v. Ill. Dep't of Revenue, 369 F.3d 1007, 1016 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Davis v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 445 F.3d 971, 978-79 (7th Cir.2006); Spath v. Hayes Wheels Int'l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 397 (7th Cir.2000). Comparable seriousness may be shown by pointing to a violation of the same company rule, Davis, 445 F.3d at 978-79, or to conduct of similar nature, Hiatt v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994). Mindful of these principles, we turn to Peirick's proffered comparators. First, we agree with IUPUI that John Andrews, the head golf coach, is not an adequate comparator. Peirick cites Andrews's reprimand for two NCAA rule violations and comments in his 2002 evaluation stating that he needed to improve his documentation and paperwork. These two performance concerns are minor when compared to Peirick's alleged misconduct. The women's basketball coach acknowledged that NCAA rule violations are not uncommon, and Moore stated that, by definition, NCAA secondary rule violations are not serious. Nor has Peirick provided us with any basis for believing that the Department considered administrative responsibilities as important as the obligation to treat players with civility. For these reasons, we conclude that Andrews and Peirick are not similarly situated. However, we think that Franklin and Lord are valid comparators. They both engaged in serious violations of Indiana University's Statement of Principles on the Conduct of Participants in Student Athletic Programs and were consistently provided progressive discipline. Steve Franklin received repeated complaints of verbal abuse in 2002 and 2003, about the time of Peirick's termination. In January 2003, two players who left the soccer team indicated in their exit interviews that they were leaving, in part, because of issues with the coaching staff or style. They both recommended that a new head coach be hired and stated that Franklin was often verbally abusive. One student said that he thought other coaches had left the team because of Franklin, Franklin did not inspire the team, and yelling was the way Franklin communicated with and motivated his players. The other stated that Franklin engaged in mind games, demeaning [sic] & insulting players. A parent echoed these sentiments in a letter to Moore in October 2003, stating that during the course of four years, he had witnessed Franklin's pervasive pattern of verbal and emotional abuse. Another letter sent by a parent to IUPUI's chancellor indicated that one student ha[d] been verbally and emotionally abused while on the soccer team at IUPUI. Further, the parent speculated that [a]s evidenced by the number of players who have left this team over the recent years, in my opinion, he was probably not alone[.] Franklin acknowledged in his deposition that on at least two occasions, a parent had called Moore to complain about Franklin's conduct and that a parent called Moore at halftime during one soccer game to say that Franklin should be fired. Each of these complaints was met with progressive discipline. Moore allowed Franklin to respond to the criticisms of the parent who requested Franklin's termination during halftime. In October 2003, Moore wrote a letter to Franklin stating that Franklin's use of sarcasm, bullying, and mental games with the players had contributed to a perceived culture of lack of respect for student-athlete dignity and emotional well being within the men's soccer program. Moore and O'Grady met with Franklin on multiple occasions to discuss the letter of reprimand and Franklin's plan for improvement. Franklin explained that Moore and O'Grady counseled him to take a kinder and gentler demeanor and approach, and informed him that they would be watching his behavior and would meet with him at the end of the season to determine whether he would be retained. At the end of the year, Moore and O'Grady were happy with Franklin's progress and he was invited back to coach for the 2004 year. Richard Lord, the men's tennis coach, is also a valid comparator. In his deposition, Lord acknowledged that as the men's tennis coach his duties were akin to Peirick's and he could think of no distinctions in their responsibilities. Throughout his tenure at IUPUI, Lord engaged in serious misconduct for which he could have been terminated. He received extremely low marks on his 1999 evaluation in the following areas: being organized in practice and game preparations, developing the potential of student-athletes, providing strong leadership and discipline, establishing clear team and individual goals, and displaying exemplary conduct at all times when with the team. The evaluation concluded by saying that Lord's future IUPUI employment as men's tennis coach depend[ed] on improvement in the areas discussed in this document. In February 2000, he was issued a written reprimand for public behavior unbecoming of a head coach based on his admission that his students had consumed alcohol during a road trip. Lord acknowledged that in approximately 2002, Moore counseled him not to use profanity with players in response to a complaint of verbal abuse. Lord also had numerous NCAA violations, one of which resulted in a week-long suspension from coaching. Despite his clear performance problemslosing records in most, if not all, of his years as head men's tennis coach, NCAA rule violations, problems fulfilling administrative requirements, complaints regarding use of profanity and permitting students to drink alcoholhe was never terminated, but voluntarily resigned his position sometime after Peirick's dismissal. Peirick was accused of using abusive language, unsafe driving, leaving students behind during a road trip, and pitting the students against the administration during the Tennis Center scheduling conflict. According to IUPUI's position statement in response to Peirick's EEOC Charge of Discrimination, these acts amounted to violations of Indiana University's Statement of Principles on the Conduct of Participants in Student Athletic Programs. In particular, Peirick was accused of violating Section 3.1.4, which states that The obligation of coaches to treat others with dignity and respect is not limited to their interaction with student athletes, but shall apply to their treatment of all other participants. . . . The University further alleged that Peirick had violated Section 2.4, which states that The conduct of all participants shall reflect the fact that by virtue of their participation in the student athletic programs sponsored by Indiana University, they are representing the University. As a result, participants are expected to exhibit a higher standard of behavior than might be expected of other students, staff, and faculty, and to avoid conduct that is likely to appear improper. Although Franklin and Lord did not engage in the exact same misconduct as alleged of Peirick, they violated the very same rules as Peirick. See Davis, 445 F.3d at 978 (that employees engaged in identical rule violations provided some indication that the offenses were of comparable seriousness). Franklin repeatedly contravened Section 3.1.4, which directed coaches to treat students with dignity and respect. Indeed, in his written reprimand, Moore told Franklin that his conduct had created a culture of lack of respect for student-athlete dignity and emotional well being within the men's soccer program. Likewise, Lord was accused of being verbally abusive. Lord also violated Section 2.4's directive to avoid the appearance of impropriety when he engaged in public behavior unbecoming of a head coach by allowing students to drink alcohol while on a road trip. Moreover, we can be sure that the University considered Lord and Franklin to have engaged in serious misconduct, as both were warned to improve or face termination. We find both to be similarly situated employees, who were treated more favorably than Peirick.