Smith v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321

Mitten, a white supervisor at Lockheed, was terminated for forwarding a racially insensitive NASCAR email in violation of Lockheed's zero tolerance policy.
Lockheed’s policy requires proactive reporting and investigation of harassment, with discipline up to termination for violations.
The district court granted Lockheed summary judgment, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework and requiring a comparator showing to establish a prima facie case.
Mitten argued circumstantial evidence, including white-on-white disciplinary disparities and management's race-aware decision processes, supported discrimination despite no direct comparator.
Internal HR records during 2005 summer show white employees receiving harsher discipline than black employees for similar conduct, and a ‘matrix’ tracking race in discipline decisions.
ABC News and Meridian shootings created external scrutiny pressuring Lockheed while Mitten’s case was ongoing, contributing to evidence of management incentives to discipline whites more harshly for similar conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in McDonnell Douglas framework	Mitten need not rely on a comparator; circumstantial evidence suffices.	Mitten must show a valid comparator and a presumption of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas.	District court erred; triable issue exists from circumstantial evidence.
Whether evidence shows pretext or discriminatory intent	Disparate treatment of white employees and race-based matrix show pretext.	Discipline based on rank and conduct justifies termination; no discriminatory motive shown.	Evidence could support inference of discriminatory intent; summary judgment improper.
Whether the 'matrix' race-tracking demonstrates race-based decision making	Race entries in the matrix influenced discipline decisions against Mitten.	Matrix tracking was for convenience and did not drive discipline.	Matrix presence supports inference that race affected discipline; material to discrimination claim.
Whether evidence of white employees disciplined harsher than black counterparts is probative	White non-supervisors were fired for similar conduct while black counterparts were spared or lightly punished.	Discipline varied by rank and context; not proof of discrimination.	Circumstantial disparity supports inference of discrimination; prevents summary judgment.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden shifts to employer to show legitimate reasons, then pretext)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext inference at summary judgment depends on record)
Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (2008) (circumstantial evidence can raise triable issue without a comparator)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (1997) (summary judgment appropriate only if no discrimination evidence present)
Silverman v. Bd. of Educ., 637 F.3d 729 (2011) (flexible circumstantial evidence framework; mosaic of evidence admissible)
Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 528, 87 F.3d 1261 (1996) (disparate treatment evidence can come from same decisionmaker against others)
Lathem v. Dep't of Children & Youth Servs., 172 F.3d 786 (1999) (similarly situated analysis for comparators in discrimination cases)
Hasan v. Foley & Lardner LLP, 552 F.3d 520 (2008) (courts may consider other acts of discrimination as circumstantial proof)
Williams v. Lindenwood Univ., 288 F.3d 349 (2002) (evidence of discrimination can be broader than strict prima facie ingredients)
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (2008) (other acts by same decisionmaker probative of discriminatory intent)