Jermolowicz v. Ball Corporation
2:11-cv-00248
| N.D. Ind. | May 30, 2013Background
- Jermolowicz worked at Ball from 1992–2010 as Production Supervisor over eight workers, including Cotner; Ball has a written honesty/discipline policy and a separate credit-card policy.
- In March 2010, Jermolowicz attended The Riverside with Cotner; during intoxicated conversation, allegations arose that she touched Cotner’s chest, which she denies.
- HR conducted an investigation; Thoennes concluded the Cotton allegation was true, leading to a Last Chance Agreement for Unacceptable Behavior.
- In July 2010, Ball asked Jermolowicz to address a $249.86 personal-charges balance on her company card; she promised payment, which did not clear.
- In August 2010, Jermolowicz falsely claimed she was hospitalized for a parasite infection to excuse an absence; she later admitted the falsity; Ball terminated her later in September 2010 after findings of dishonesty.
- Jermolowicz asserted Title VII discrimination based on sex, and a defamation claim against Cotner; Ball moved for summary judgment on both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jermolowicz proves Title VII discrimination indirectly. | Jermolowicz asserts she met Ball's legitimate expectations. | Ball contends her admitted lie shows she failed honesty expectations. | Grant summary judgment on Title VII claim. |
| Whether a valid comparator shows sex discrimination. | Cotner as potential comparator shows Ball treated men better. | Cotner differs in material respects (misuse of card, lies) and is not a proper comparator. | No valid comparator; Title VII claim fails. |
| Whether defamation claim remains viable in federal court. | Defamation claim should proceed in federal court due to supplemental jurisdiction. | Pendent state-law claim should be dismissed if federal claims are gone. | Decline jurisdiction; dismiss defamation claim without prejudice. |
| Whether the Court should exercise pendent jurisdiction over the defamation claim given discretion. | Decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. | ||
| Whether dismissal of federal claims requires dismissal of state claims or potential exceptions apply. | N/A | N/A | Rests on normal rule to relinquish jurisdiction; no exceptions apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coco v. Elmwood Care, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177 (7th Cir. 1997) (employer expectations must be in good faith; honesty standard tied to practice)
- Robin v. Espo Eng’g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 2000) (employer honesty expectations governing summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244 (7th Cir. 1994) (factors for discretionary dismissal of pendent state claims)
- Liberty Lobby v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (standard for genuine disputes on summary judgment)
- Gibbs v. United Steelworkers of Am., 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (discretionary rules on pendent state claims)
- Torres v. Parkview Foods, 468 N.E.2d 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (statute of limitations tolling for subsequent state action)