608 F. App'x 424
7th Cir.2015Background
- Thelma Brown, hired May 2010 as a Life Activity Partner at Wyndemere LLC, was responsible for planning activities and filing state-required resident activity assessments within 72 hours of admission.
- Over ten months Brown received multiple disciplinary warnings for late or incomplete assessments, yelling at coworkers, and showing favoritism; she received an oral reprimand, two written reprimands, a final written warning, and was later terminated for failing to timely submit six assessments.
- Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, alleging race discrimination (she dropped retaliation on appeal).
- In the district court Brown failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1; the court therefore accepted Wyndemere’s statement of facts and granted summary judgment for the employer.
- The district court held Brown failed to make a prima facie discrimination showing because she did not identify a properly similarly situated, non-African-American comparator; the court determined Patricia Stuart was not a valid comparator given differences in disciplinary histories.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed: it upheld enforcement of local rules against a pro se litigant and agreed Brown had not established a prima facie case, so it did not reach pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly enforced Local Rule 56.1 and struck Brown’s facts | Brown: as pro se, should be allowed to correct deficient filings | Wyndemere: local rules apply and Brown had notice of requirements | Court: enforcement permissible; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance |
| Whether Brown established a prima facie race-discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas | Brown: was given heavier tasks and treated worse than coworkers (e.g., Patricia Stuart) | Wyndemere: Brown’s disciplinary record was significantly worse; Stuart not similarly situated | Court: Brown failed to identify a proper comparator; no prima facie case |
| Whether comparator Patricia Stuart was similarly situated | Brown: Stuart slept on job and missed assessments yet was not fired | Wyndemere: Stuart’s misconduct and disciplinary record differ materially from Brown’s | Court: Stuart not a valid comparator due to different disciplinary histories |
| Whether employer’s stated reason (failure to timely complete assessments) was pretext for discrimination | Brown: assignments and supervisor’s differential assistance show pretext | Wyndemere: termination was for repeated failures to complete required tasks | Court: did not reach pretext because prima facie case not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (similarly situated comparator need not be identical but must have comparable discipline/performance)
- Amrhein v. Health Care Service Corp., 546 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2008) (employees with dissimilar disciplinary records are not similarly situated)
- Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 2006) (district courts may enforce local rules against pro se litigants)
- Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) (litigants are charged with knowledge of and must comply with local rules)