Denise Coleman v. Patrick R. Donaho, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 241

Coleman was terminated by the Postal Service in January 2006 after expressing homicidal thoughts about her supervisor to her psychiatrist; the termination was under the postal violence/threat rule.
Coleman identified two white, male comparators (Arient and Pelletier) who received lighter discipline for similar misconduct; the district court found them not similarly situated because of different supervisors and roles.
The district court granted summary judgment on Coleman’s Title VII claims, ruling she failed to show a prima facie case or pretext.
The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding comparator evidence can be enough to establish a prima facie case and to support a pretext finding, and that the comparators were sufficiently similar.
Arbitration awarded Coleman reinstatement but did not categorically determine pretext; the court held arbitration is not binding on Title VII claims absent a contractual arbitration clause.
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, with the court noting that evidence of selective enforcement and the timing of events supports genuine issues of fact on pretext and retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether comparators are sufficiently similar to Coleman	Coleman’s comparators share supervisor, standards, and misconduct.	Arient/Pelletier differ in role and supervision, not sufficiently similar.	Yes, they are sufficiently similar for summary judgment purposes.
Whether comparator evidence supports pretext	Comparator treatment shows nonconforming enforcement of the rule.	Employer’s stated rule compliance was legitimate.	Evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact on pretext.
Whether arbitration precludes Title VII claims	Arbitration findings should bind the Title VII issue.	Arbitration does not preclude Title VII claims absent a clause; not binding on pretext.	Arbitration does not preclude; not binding on Title VII pretext issues.
Whether Coleman established retaliation via direct or mosaic proof	Temporal proximity and pretext evidence support retaliation claim.	Lacks direct evidence; relied on indirect method previously.	Direct mosaic approach proves retaliation survives summary judgment.
Whether the timing of protected activity and discipline supports causation	Six-week cluster of complaints and disciplinary actions implies causation.	Proximity alone is insufficient; must be contextualized.	Contextual timing evidence supports causation in mosaic analysis.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (foundation of indirect method; pretext evidence can satisfy plaintiff)
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (posture of prima facie case and shifting burdens)
Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2007) (flexible, common-sense similarly situated standard)
Gates v. Caterpillar, Inc., 513 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2008) (three-factor framework for similarly situated analysis)
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976) (proper scope of comparator evidence in discrimination)
Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc., 246 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2001) (comparator evidence can show pretext and disparate discipline)
Gardner-Denver Co. v. Penn, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (arbitration and preclusion principles in discrimination claims)
14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) (clarified arbitration of Title VII claims when contract requires)
O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext and circumstantial evidence standards)