Jean Simpson v. Vanderbilt University, 689 F. App'x 450

Background

Jean Simpson, a Vanderbilt pathology professor, started and ran Breast Pathology Consultants, Inc. (BPC) while employed and participating in Vanderbilt Medical Group (VMG); she solicited former Vanderbilt consult clients and earned ~$244,147 from BPC between Feb 2012–Oct 2013.
Simpson signed VMG Participation Agreement and was subject to Vanderbilt’s Conflict of Interest Policy and VMG By-Laws; she did not obtain permission or disclose BPC on her 2012 COI form until Vanderbilt discovered the activity.
Vanderbilt repeatedly warned Simpson (three notices) that BPC violated policies; Simpson filed a revised disclosure in Oct 2012 but denied competition and asserted male colleagues had similar outside practices.
A faculty investigative committee found Simpson neglected duty and recommended termination and repayment of BPC funds; settlement negotiations failed and Vanderbilt terminated Simpson for cause on Oct 24, 2013.
Simpson sued under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act alleging gender discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted Vanderbilt summary judgment on discrimination (Simpson did not appeal the retaliation dismissal).
On appeal, Simpson identified male comparators (notably Dr. Peter Donofrio) who engaged in outside consulting; the Sixth Circuit analyzed whether any male employees were "similarly situated" but found meaningful differences in disclosure, cooperation, conduct, and remedies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson established a prima facie Title VII sex‑discrimination claim	Simpson argued she is a woman, was terminated, was qualified, and male employees who earned outside consulting income were treated more favorably	Vanderbilt argued Simpson failed the comparator element because identified males differed materially in conduct, disclosure, cooperation, and approval	Court held Simpson failed to identify a "similarly situated" male; prima facie case not established
Whether Dr. Donofrio is a proper comparator	Simpson pointed to Donofrio (Best Doctors) as nearly identical comparator who was not terminated	Vanderbilt emphasized Donofrio disclosed work, ceased when first told, cooperated in review, repaid fees, and his conduct (third‑party site) differed from creating and soliciting for a private company	Court held Donofrio not sufficiently similar; disciplinary outcomes and facts differ
Whether other male physicians show unequal treatment (e.g., allowance to transition earnings)	Simpson argued other males were allowed to retain/recoup earnings or transition to private practice	Vanderbilt showed those males had prior approval or different compensation arrangements; Pathology had no comparable compensation plan and Simpson sought no approval	Court held structural differences in compensation/approval mean these males are not proper comparators
Whether, assuming prima facie case, Vanderbilt’s stated reason was pretext	Simpson suggested disparate treatment and alleged unequal remedies show pretext	Vanderbilt articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations, non‑disclosure, solicitation, lack of cooperation)	Court did not reach pretext in depth because prima facie case failed; affirmed summary judgment for Vanderbilt

Key Cases Cited

Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank, 785 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1962) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party’s burden at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc., 814 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2016) (elements of prima facie discrimination under Title VII)
Peltier v. United States, 388 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 2004) (definition of prima facie elements)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) ("nearly identical" standard for comparators)
Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 1994) (comparator analysis)
Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (disciplinary comparator factors: same supervisor, standards, conduct)
Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2003) (weight of comparator factors varies by case)
Arch on the Green, Inc. v. Groves, 761 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014) (issues not argued are waived)