## Facts

- Jeff Monroe worked for the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for just over 21 years, most recently as a night-shift unit foreman supervising regular and seasonal employees.
- Monroe reported high job stress and difficult experiences, including responding to fatal accidents and witnessing a coworker’s work-related death.
- In late 2012 and early 2013, Monroe told supervisors he was stressed, not sleeping, and wanted transfer to a day shift; he was told no day-shift opening was available.
- In January 2013, several subordinates complained to management about Monroe’s treatment of them, prompting INDOT to open an internal investigation.
- During the investigation, Monroe disclosed a recent diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
- The investigation collected accounts describing Monroe as volatile, intimidating, militaristic, and disrespectful, including reports that he “exploded” at subordinates in a meeting.
- Monroe had recently received positive performance reviews, including an “exceeded expectations” rating in January 2013.
- On February 4, 2013, INDOT terminated Monroe for creating a “hostile and intimidating work environment.” Four upper-level managers made the decision; some discussed and questioned the timing or legitimacy of the PTSD diagnosis during deliberations.

## Issues

1. Whether Monroe presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find INDOT’s stated reason for termination (hostile and intimidating workplace conduct) was pretext for disability discrimination under the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether Monroe identified similarly situated, non-disabled employees who engaged in comparable misconduct but received more favorable treatment, supporting an inference of discrimination.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for INDOT and the Commissioner.
- No reasonable jury could find INDOT’s explanation was dishonest or a cover for disability discrimination.
- Monroe’s proposed comparators were not similarly situated in all material respects, so comparator evidence did not support his claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, showing pretext requires evidence that the employer’s stated reason was not its true reason; it is not enough to show the decision may have been mistaken or harsh.
- Courts evaluate whether the employer honestly believed its stated rationale, not whether the decision was correct; employment-discrimination law does not authorize courts to second-guess routine personnel judgments absent evidence of discrimination.
- Favorable past performance evaluations do not, by themselves, negate later evidence of misconduct relied on by the employer.
- Suspicious timing or discussion of a disability diagnosis, without evidence that the diagnosis caused the adverse action, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment when the employer has substantial contemporaneous evidence of non-discriminatory reasons.
- Comparator evidence requires employees to be similarly situated in all material respects, including being subject to materially similar employment rules and job protections and having sufficiently similar misconduct in type, frequency, and severity.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that INDOT was entitled to summary judgment because the record supported an honest, non-discriminatory reason for Monroe’s discharge—documented complaints and investigation findings of hostile supervisory behavior—and Monroe failed to show pretext or identify materially comparable non-disabled employees treated more favorably.


Monroe v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 871 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017)