Coss v. Briggs Healthcare, 1:15-cv-06654

Karen Coss, hired by Briggs Healthcare in Sept. 2012 as Regional Director of Sales, had mixed management and sales responsibilities and reported to SVP Brad Mueller.
Mueller rated Coss poorly for 2012–2013 performance, placed her on a 30‑day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in Aug. 2013 (later extended), and Coss was terminated in March 2014 when her position was eliminated.
Coss alleges inadequate sales performance justified termination, but contends men (e.g., Bill Brantman, Chuck Liston) were treated better, received promotions and/or resources, and that inventory was allocated preferentially to men.
Coss and other employees lodged complaints about Mueller’s abusive management; she also alleges sporadic sexist comments by Mueller about other female employees’ appearances.
Coss filed an EEOC charge and sued under Title VII for sex discrimination (discriminatory discharge) and hostile work environment; Briggs moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discriminatory discharge — pretext	Coss: her poor ratings were pretext; comparators were promoted and received more resources	Briggs: Coss failed to meet legitimate sales expectations; promotions based on superior performance	Court: Grant summary judgment for Briggs — no evidence that poor performance was pretext for sex discrimination
Similarly‑situated comparators	Coss: Brantman and Liston held same role and were promoted ahead of her	Briggs: Comparators had superior 2013 performance; not comparable because performance histories differ	Court: Comparators not similarly situated; disparate promotions explained by better performance
Hostile work environment — harassment "because of sex"	Coss: Mueller’s sexist comments and pattern of mistreatment predominantly targeted women	Briggs: Mueller was an abusive manager who treated men and women poorly	Court: No triable evidence Mueller’s conduct was motivated by sex; treatment was largely non‑sex‑specific
Hostile work environment — severe or pervasive standard	Coss: conduct (bullying, public criticism, sexist remarks) created hostile environment	Briggs: Comments were sporadic and criticism was work‑related; not objectively severe or pervasive	Court: Incidents were isolated/ordinary workplace tribulations and not objectively severe or pervasive; claim fails

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and reasonable jury inquiry)
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Senske v. Sybase, 588 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2009) (pretext and assessing employer’s stated reasons)
Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (proper standard for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases)
Hall v. City of Chicago, 713 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2013) (consideration of gender‑based comments in hostile work environment analysis)
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability and Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (U.S. 2013) (definition of supervisor and employer liability for harassment)