Susan Kuttner v. John Zaruba
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6765
7th Cir.2016Background
- Kuttner, a DuPage County deputy sheriff since 1998, was discharged by the Merit Commission in February 2010 after she, wearing her sheriff’s uniform and badge, visited the home of a borrower who owed money to her boyfriend and left a business card when the borrower was not present.
- Kuttner stipulated to the factual basis and admitted violations of rules prohibiting “conduct unbecoming” and improper wearing of the uniform; other charges were dropped as part of that stipulation.
- Kuttner filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination, received a right-to-sue notice, and sued Sheriff Zaruba under Title VII alleging discriminatory firing, denial of promotion, and discriminatory jail-staffing policies.
- During discovery Kuttner sought broad personnel files (over 30 employees); the district court limited discovery (temporal cutoff of Jan. 1, 2006, and narrowed comparators to those with similar misconduct), denied late reconsideration, and restricted hearsay-seeking deposition questions.
- At summary judgment Kuttner offered four male comparators; the court found their misconduct not sufficiently similar to hers and granted summary judgment on the discharge and promotion claims; the staffing claim proceeded to trial and was later resolved against Kuttner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery (temporal cutoff and limits on comparator personnel files) | Cutoff was arbitrary and prevented exploration of male misconduct pre-2006 that would show disparate treatment | Limits were reasonable responses to overbroad, burdensome, and harassing discovery requests; cutoff focused discovery on likely relevant comparators | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; cutoff and other limits were reasonable and did not cause substantial prejudice |
| Admissibility of hearsay-focused deposition questions | Counsel should be allowed to ask witnesses about whether they had heard of other deputies’ misconduct (could lead to admissible evidence) | Such questions were overbroad; discovery should be limited to witnesses’ personal knowledge about abuse of authority | Affirmed: judge properly restricted deposition questions to witnesses’ personal knowledge to avoid fishing for hearsay |
| Prima facie case of sex discrimination (firing) under McDonnell Douglas — adequacy of comparators | Kuttner identified male deputies whose misconduct allegedly was as or more serious but who were not fired, showing disparate treatment | The offered male comparators’ misconduct materially differed (no coercive misuse of uniform); distinctions were significant enough to render comparisons inapposite | Affirmed: comparators not sufficiently similar; summary judgment for defendant on firing claim |
| Failure-to-promote claim sufficiency | Plaintiff argued statistical or other proof could establish a prima facie case without direct comparator evidence | Plaintiff never applied for promotion, presented no statistical evidence, and offered no less-qualified male promoted within the limitations period | Affirmed: claim fails as a matter of law (no application, no comparator, no statistical evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (definition of "similarly situated" employees)
- Humphries v. CBOCS W., Inc., 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2007) (comparisons can be rendered useless by significant distinctions)
- Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of prima facie Title VII case)
- Spitz v. Proven Winners N. Am., LLC, 759 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2014) (district courts’ broad discretion over discovery)
- e360 Insight, Inc. v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery review and prejudice requirement)
- Huang v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 754 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Collins v. Am. Red Cross, 715 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2013) (direct method requires proof of discriminatory motivation)
- Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2003) (relevance of temporal proximity in selecting comparators)