The Seventh Circuit held that the record showed that the deputy-sheriff was fired after attempting to collect on a loan for a friend while wearing her uniform and badge. The plaintiff argued that four male co-workers committed similar misconduct and were not fired. However, the District Court could properly find that none of the comparative co-workers were similarly-situated, as the misconduct did not concern an improper projection of coercive police authority. Additionally, the District Court did not err in limiting scope of plaintiff's discovery requests of co-worker personal files to files going back to January 1, 2006, finding that: (1) plaintiff had sought overly-broad requests for co-worker personnel files that included the Sheriff's wife; (2) the time restriction served to hone in possible comparative co-workers; and (3) the time limitation was adequate to allow her to engage in meaningful discovery.
However, Judge Posner dissented, explaining that if she could prove her allegations, she would be "well on her way to proving sex discrimination" but that she was prevented from doing so by "an arbitrary discovery cut-off." He further noted that when the plaintiff went to the borrow's home, she was "at least partially in uniform (a potentially significant qualification ignored in the majority opinion . . . )" and she left a business card for her off-duty business "Team in Focus, DC International." Further, the record showed that the plaintiff identified more than 21 favored males, but the "plaintiff's lawyer was prevented from trying to establish the truth" because of the cut-off date.