Marica Johnson v. Koppers, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16489

Johnson, an African-American woman, worked as a laboratory technician at Koppers’ Stickney, Illinois plant from 2000–2008 (employed there since 1995).
Prior to termination, Johnson received multiple disciplinary actions: July 1999 (10-day suspension for being asleep at her desk), August 2000 (written warning for smoking in the lunch room), December 2005 (written warning for not punching out), November 2006 (fighting with a security guard), and July 2007 (altercation with white coworker Michael O’Connell).
In July 2007, Johnson’s warning was reduced to a memo after a union grievance, and O’Connell received a less severe warning for the incident.
On April 28, 2008, Johnson and O’Connell allegedly argued again; the plant manager investigated, interviewed Johnson and O’Connell, and a third-party witness saw Johnson push O’Connell.
Following the investigation, Johnson’s suspension was converted to termination on May 12, 2008, based on insubordination and prior conduct; Johnson sued Koppers under Title VII and §1981, and the district court granted summary judgment for Koppers.
Johnson appeals asserting direct (cat’s paw) and indirect discrimination theories; the court reviews summary judgment de novo and affirms in favor of Koppers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Direct discrimination under cat’s paw theory	Johnson argues O’Connell’s bias contaminated the decision.	Koppers asserts the proximate cause was Johnson’s own April 2008 conduct.	No direct discrimination; proximate cause was Johnson’s insubordination as found by the investigation.
Indirect method proof and pretext	Johnson contends disparate treatment shows pretext.	Koppers argues Johnson failed to show she met expectations and that termination was for insubordination.	Johnson fails to show unmet expectations or pretext; court affirming summary judgment for Koppers.

Jajeh v. Cook County, 678 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (cat’s paw requires proximate cause by biased actor)
Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2013) (avoid speculation; state of mind must be evidenced)
Everroad v. Scott Trucks Sys. Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (genuine belief by supervisor matters to pretext inquiry)
Amrhein v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 546 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2008) (similarly-situated comparison analysis)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretext and credibility issues in classification)
Smiley v. Columbia College Chicago, 714 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2013) (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (cat’s paw theory requires biased subordinate to trigger action)
Overly v. KeyBank Nat. Ass’n, 662 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2011) (direct proof standard for discrimination)