Marshall v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff-employee on account of his sexual orientation and in retaliation for its belief that plaintiff would file EEOC charge against defendant. Defendant explained that plaintiff was terminated following its investigation into complaint by male subordinate that plaintiff had engaged in same-sex, sexual harassment with subordinate on two occasions. Plaintiff, though, failed to produce valid comparative employee who received better treatment, even though two of said proposed comparative co-workers had been accused of sexual harassment, where said comparative co-workers: (1) did not have same level and type of authority over their victims as plaintiff had over his victim; and (2) did not have same sort of disciplinary history as plaintiff. Plaintiff further failed to show that defendant's explanation for his termination was pretextual. Fact that plaintiff disagreed with defendant's finding that plaintiff had sexually harassed his subordinate did not establish pretext. Plaintiff also failed to show any causal connection between any protest and any adverse act, where defendant made decision to terminate plaintiff prior to its knowledge that plaintiff might be filing EEOC complaint.