Employer’s termination of employee for misuse of computer not based on gender, Seventh Circuit holds

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the federal district court, held that an employee’s termination for improper computer use did not constitute sex discrimination.

In Weber v. Universities Research Association, Inc., 2010 WL 3431629 (7th Cir. 2010), Katherine Weber filed a Title VII claim of sex discrimination and retaliation against the Universities Research Association, Inc. (“URA”) after she was fired from the URA for using URA’s computers to conduct outside business. She argued that there were male employees who used URA computers to conduct outside business who were not disciplined.

Weber’s supervisor decided to monitor Weber’s Internet usage for five workdays after noticing that she spent a great deal of time at her computer, but still did not complete her assignments. It was discovered that Weber spent more than 16 hours visiting websites unrelated to her job and that she had used URA’s computers to promote her dog-training business. URA had a policy requiring employees to obtain prior authorization for outside employment. The policy provided that failure to obtain authorization could be grounds for termination.

The federal district court granted URA’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Weber failed to establish a prima facie case for sex discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, Weber was required to show: (1) that she is a woman (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she was meeting URA’s legitimate business expectations, and (4) similarly situated men were treated more favorably. Weber v. Universities Research Ass'n, Inc., 2008 WL 818268 (N.D. Ill. 2008), citing Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp., 472 F.3d 930, 939 (7th Cir. 2007).

The district court found that Weber failed to meet URA’s legitimate business expectations by failing to obtain prior authorization to conduct outside business. The court further found that more than 16 hours in one week on websites for personal use was unreasonable.

On appeal, Weber claimed she was not required to show she had met URA’s legitimate expectations as long as she could show that similarly situated men were punished less harshly.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that even if Weber was not required to show she met URA’s legitimate business expectations, she still failed to show there were other similarly situated men who were treated more favorably. Although she showed several male employees violated the policy without being fired, she did not show that any of the employees were similarly situated. Specifically, Weber did not produce evidence that any of the men had trouble completing their assignments or violated the policy to the same degree.