Robert Steinhauer v. Laura Degolier and State of Wisconsin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that two employees were “not similarly situated because [one] was still on probation while [the other] was not”
• concluding that decisonmaker’s comment not made to plaintiff, made in passing, and unrelated to any employment decision was not sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent
• demonstrating that 6 No. 10-2000 inconclusive testimony cannot by itself create a genuine factual dispute
• finding that “it is unreasonable to infer that [plaintiffs supervisors] decided to terminate [plaintiff] based on his sex since they had just decided to hire him notwithstanding his sex”
• “Purifoy and Steinhauer were not similarly situated because Steinhauer was still on probation while Purifoy was not.”
• “Purifoy and Steinhauer were not similarly situated because Steinhauer was still on probation while Purifoy was not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).