01-3148, 01-3493 Snipes v. Illinois Department of Corrections

Listen to this article

“While Snipes and the other correctional officers were technically subject to the same written attendance policy and formal disciplinary process, the record also shows that the difference in supervisors under whom Snipes and the other correctional officers worked resulted in disparate application of and adherence to such policy and process. Given the inconsistent administration of relevant policy and process under different supervisors, the district court’s conclusion that the lack of commonality in supervisors among the correctional officers disciplined for attendance violations precluded an inference of discrimination is not unreasonable. See, e.g., Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that plaintiff was not comparable to another employee in all material respects where plaintiff and other employee were evaluated by different supervisors); Radue, 219 F.3d at 618 (finding that lack of common supervisor precluded showing of similarity because when ‘different decision-makers are involved, two decisions are rarely similarly situated in all respects) (citations omitted). Because the district court acted within its discretion in determining that Snipes and other correctional officers disciplined for attendance violations were not similarly situated, evidence regarding the disciplinary records of those officers was properly excluded.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, King, J., Bauer, J.