Catherine Petzel v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0149n.06
No. 15-3671
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CATHERINE PETZEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
BEFORE: GRIFFIN and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.1
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Catherine Petzel sued Defendants-Appellees Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc. et al. (“Redflex”). She claims that Redflex fired her in violation of Title VII. Petzel claims
that Redflex discriminated against her because of her gender and national origin, Australian. The
district court gave summary judgment to Redflex because Petzel did not rebut Redflex’s
nondiscriminatory explanation for Petzel’s termination. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM the
district court’s grant of summary judgment.
1 The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by
designation.

-- 1 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Catherine Petzel alleges that Defendant Redflex discriminated against her
because of her gender and because she is an Australian. Petzel does not show evidence or make
argument on the nationality claim. In support of her gender discrimination claim, Petzel says
Redflex treated a similarly situated male, Darren Kolack, differently. In response to Petzel’s
circumstantial evidence argument regarding Darren Kolack, Redflex says it separated men with
sales records similar to Petzel and says Kolack was not similarly situated to Petzel.2
Redflex says it put salesperson Petzel on an improvement plan because she made only
three sales in the three years before fall 2011. Because she had not made any 2011 sales and
because Petzel failed to satisfy a sales quota that Redflex gave to all its salespersons, Redflex
gave Petzel a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Redflex fired Petzel when she did not
satisfy that plan.
Petzel admits that she did not satisfy the sales quota given to all Redflex salespeople. She
also admits she did not satisfy the Performance Improvement Plan, but says Redflex did not fire
a similarly situated American male employee, Darren Kolack. Like Petzel, Kolack failed to
satisfy the Redflex sales quota and was also on a PIP.
Redflex responds that it has treated male salesmen similar to Petzel, but Kolack was not
similarly situated to Petzel. First, Kolack had a better sales history than Petzel over the course of
their careers at Redflex. Redflex also says that it had stopped selling to two of the three states
that Kolack covered because its product had become politically impossible in those states.
2 Redflex is a subsidiary corporation of Redflex Holdings Limited, a publicly traded company on the Australian
stock exchange.

-- 2 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
3
Second, during the PIP period, Redflex had given Kolack development responsibilities for a new
product. Plaintiff Petzel had no similar responsibility.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Redflex hired Petzel as a Regional Sales Manager in early 2009.3 Redflex sells electronic
traffic monitoring devices that allow cities to ticket vehicles without police officers being
present. The devices generate significant revenue and are often politically unpopular.
As a Redflex salesperson, Petzel covered Ohio and later covered Iowa. Regional Sales
Director Mark Etzbach directly supervised Petzel. Vice President of Sales, Aaron Rosenberg,
indirectly supervised Petzel.4 Karen Finley was CEO and signed off on Redflex’s decision to
fire Petzel. During her time with Redflex, Petzel was either the lone woman, or one of just two
women, in the Redflex salesforce.5
Petzel had little sales success. In the three years before 2011, Petzel executed only three
sales contracts.6 While Redflex did not originally have any formal sales requirements, it
generally expected its Sales Employees to execute at least three contracts per year.7 As
described, before the new policy, Petzel had made only three sales in more than two years. On
July 14, 2011, Sales Vice President Rosenberg sent sales employees an email that gave new
minimum sales requirements. At the time Rosenberg established this new sales quota, the
Redflex salesforce included Sales Manager Etzbach, Darren Kolack, Charlie Buckels, Peter
McNerney, and Petzel.
3 Petzel Depo. RE 48-1, PageID# 766.
4 Petzel Depo. RE 47-3, PageID# 441, 444.
5 Finley Depo. RE 51-1, PageID# 947.
6 Petzel Depo. RE 47-3, PageID# 441.
7 Finley Depo., RE 48-1, Page ID# 821; Buckels Dec., RE 48-1, PageID# 737.

-- 3 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
4
With this policy, Redflex formally established a sales quota requiring one to two new
executed contracts per quarter, with an absolute minimum of four contracts per fiscal year.8
Rosenberg also told the salesforce that a failure to deliver would “be swiftly dealt with
(including up to immediate termination.).”9
After announcing this formal sales quota, Redflex continued to warn Petzel that it would
enforce this quota. Redflex used a June 30 fiscal year. Petzel achieved no fully executed
contracts during the FY 2012 first quarter that ended on September 30, 2011.
On August 29, 2011, Vice-President Rosenberg again warned Petzel saying, “if by
October 1, (end of Q1), your efforts do not produce at least one . . . fully executed contract in
Youngstown or Norwalk and/or an ‘official’ and formal contract award/selection in Waterloo;
your position will be terminated.”10
On August 30, 2011, Rosenberg again warned Petzel of the sales requirements, telling her
that if she did not get an executed contract in Youngstown/Norwalk or an official contract in
Waterloo, “your employment will be terminated.”11
In September 2011, Petzel helped with a sales effort for Montgomery, Texas. Sales
Agent Etzbach had principal responsibility for Montgomery, but Etzbach asked for Petzel’s help
because of scheduling conflicts.12 The City of Montgomery had only about 600 residents.13 The
City of Montgomery told Redflex it would proceed to contract with Redflex in the near future.
8 Vice President Rosenberg wrote, “4 . . . [is] [t]he absolute minimum # of new executed contracts per existing sales
executive, including Mark, Catherine, Darren, Peter, and Charlie. This does not mean 4 in Q3 or Q4, each of you
will need to drive to 1-2 new executed contracts per quarter, starting Q1.” Rosenberg email RE 51-10, PageID#
1045-47.
9 Id.
10 Rosenberg Aug. 29 2011 email to Petzel RE 51-4, PageID# 1028.
11 Rosenberg Aug. 30, 2011 email to Petzel, RE 47-4, PageID# 519.
12 Petzel Depo., RE 48-1, Page ID# 774; Finley Dep. Ex. 6, RE 48-1, Page ID# 830-31.
13 Finley Depo. Ex.6, RE 48-1, Page ID# 830.

-- 4 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
5
But because mayors or managers typically needed city council approvals, Montgomery’s
commitment was not a completed contract.
Although Petzel failed to satisfy the FY 2012 first quarter sales quota, on September 27,
2011, Sales Director Etzbach recommended to Vice-President Rosenberg that Petzel “be granted
an extension through Q2, or December 31st, at which time if she is unsuccessful in bringing an
additional contract to pass, that her employment be terminated.”14 Sales Director Etzbach argued
that Montgomery, Texas’s expression of an intent to enter a contract should be considered as a
mitigating factor against termination, but that there will “be no room for error over the next three
months if she is granted an extension.”15
Vice-President Rosenberg gave Petzel the ninety-day extension to meet the quota,
thereby extending her improvement period to December 31, 2011. Redflex also put Petzel on a
formal Performance Improvement Plan.
Two males, Charlie Buckels and Darren Kolack, who had also not executed a contract in
the July 2011-October 2011 period, were also placed on a FY 2012 Q2 Performance
Improvement Plan.16 Each PIP warned that the Sales Employee would be terminated if he or she
failed to execute two contracts by December 31, 2011, the end of the FY 2012 second quarter.
During the FY 2012 second quarter, Petzel failed to obtain any executed contracts,
official contract awards, or commitments.17 During the same period, Charlie Buckels obtained
two contracts, thereby satisfying the PIP requirement.18 Darren Kolack did not obtain any
14 Finley Depo. Ex. 17, RE 48-1, Page ID# 851.
15 Id.
16 Petzel Depo., RE 481-1, Page ID# 781; Petzel Depo. Ex. M, RE 48-1, Page ID# 804-05.
17 Petzel Depo., RE 48-1, Page ID# 783-84.
18 Buckels Dec., RE 48-1, Page ID# 737.

-- 5 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
6
executed contracts in the FY 2012 second quarter ending December 31, 2011, but did receive
official contract awards with two cities in his territory: Miami, Arizona and Nogales, Arizona.19
Although Darren Kolack obtained these contract commitments, the Miami City Council later
overturned the Mayor’s agreement to use the Redflex camera systems. And, Redflex itself
terminated the Nogales contract because of operational challenges in the Arizona market.20
Petzel says Darren Kolack was similarly situated to her, but was not fired. Redflex
responds that Kolack was not similarly situated to Petzel. In the first half of FY 2012, Redflex
had decided not to seek contracts in Arizona and New Mexico, two of the three states that
Kolack covered.21 In effect, Redflex cut Kolack’s sales prospects by two-thirds.
Also, during the first half of FY 2012, Redflex directed Kolack to lead a new product
development called Student Guardian. Student Guardian was a new Redflex technology to
monitor and identify drivers who illegally pass school buses.22 In the first half of FY 2012,
Kolack split his time between sales and Student Guardian development.
In December 2011, Rosenberg transferred Darren Kolack to a position supporting the
Student Guardian project on a full-time basis.23 On January 1, 2012, Kolack’s position changed
from Regional Sales Manager to National Business Development Manager for Student
Guardian.24
On December 1, 2011, Vice-President Rosenberg sent an email to Etzbach and Finley
recommending Petzel’s employment be terminated at the end of 2011 because even her “most
19 Kolack Dec., RE 48-1, Page ID# 723-24, 730-31.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Kolack Dec., RE 48-1, Page ID# 722; Finley Depo., RE 48-1, Page ID# 824.
23 Kolack Dec., RE 48-1, Page ID# 724; Kolack Dec. Ex. C, RE 48-1, Page ID# 730-731; Finley Dep. 97, RE 48-1,
Page ID# 826.
24 Id.

-- 6 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
7
advanced pursuits and contracts in negotiation cycles have reversed course.”25 Rosenberg asked
for Sales Manager Etzbach’s input as to whether Petzel should be terminated since Etzbach was
Petzel’s direct supervisor. Etzbach responded that he agreed with Rosenberg’s recommendation
to fire Petzel.26
Rosenberg emailed Petzel a final warning:
[As] you know, we only have until December 31st to get some deals across
the line. Specifically, each Sales resource is required to deliver a minimum
of 2 executed contracts over each 6-month period. . . . [You] have not
executed the required two contracts nor received formal awards . . . [I]f
your performance doesn’t improve over the next several weeks and if we
are not able to execute two contracts or have formal competitive awards
with Council ratification to commence negotiations with Redflex; we will
need to terminate you effective December 31st.27
Petzel did not execute two contracts by December 31, 2011. She did not obtain any new
contracts in FY 2012’s second quarter. Redflex terminated Petzel’s employment effective
December 31, 2011.28 After Petzel’s termination, Redflex assigned Robert Riebe, an American
male, as the Regional Sales Director for the Ohio region.29
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.30 Summary judgment is
proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.31 In considering such a motion, the court must view the evidence
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.32 The central issue is
25 Rosenberg email Dec. 1, 2011, RE 51-16 PageID# 1072.
26 Id. at PageID# 1071.
27 Rosenberg email Dec. 1, 2011, RE 47-4, PageID# 529-530.
28 Separation Notification, RE 47-4, PageID# 536.
29 First Set of Discovery Responses; R.E. 51-26 PageID# 1410.
30 Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
31 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
32 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

-- 7 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
8
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or
whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”33
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Prima Facie Case
To make out a Title VII claim, “a plaintiff must either provide direct evidence of
discrimination or establish a prima facie case, which creates an inference of discrimination based
on circumstantial evidence.”34 If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to
the defendant, who must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action. If the defendant makes that proffer, then the burden returns to the plaintiff,
who must present evidence that the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination.
A prima facie case requires a plaintiff to present evidence that: (1) she was a member of a
protected class; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that she was
professionally qualified for the position she held at the time of the action; and (4) that she was
either replaced by a person from outside the protected class or was treated differently from
similarly situated employees outside the protected class.35
The District Court found that Petzel made the prima facie showing.36 In its summary
judgment reply briefing, Redflex conceded that Petzel met her prima facie burden.37 For these
reasons, we find that Petzel met her prima facie burden and focus our inquiry on the pretext
question.
33 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
34 Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 463 (6th Cir. 2003).
35 Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605, 607, 610 (6th Cir. 2002).
36 As a woman and as a person of foreign national origin, Petzel is a member of a protected class. Petzel was
qualified for the position. She was terminated, which is an adverse employment decision. Finally, Petzel was
replaced by an American male.
37 Summary judgment reply brief, RE 55, PageID# 1481 n. 2.

-- 8 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
9
B. Pretext
To establish pretext in an employment discrimination case, a plaintiff must demonstrate
that: (1) the proffered reasons had no basis in fact; (2) the proffered reasons did not actually
motivate the employer’s challenged conduct; or (3) the proffered reasons were insufficient to
justify the adverse action.38 Although these three methods for establishing pretext can serve as a
“convenient way of marshaling evidence and focusing it on the ultimate inquiry . . . at bottom the
question is always whether the employer made up its stated reason to conceal intentional
[discrimination].”39
Here, Redflex has articulated a valid nondiscriminatory rationale for Petzel’s termination:
Petzel’s failure to meet Redflex’s sales goals and Petzel’s failure to satisfy the terms of her PIP.
Petzel offers a number of arguments as to why Redflex’s nondiscriminatory rationale is
pretextual. Most of Petzel’s pretext arguments center on her claim that Redflex treated a
similarly situated man, Darren Kolack, differently. We address that argument first.
1. Kolack and Petzel Were Not Similarly Situated Employees.
We previously have decided that the standard for judging comparable employees should
be consistent throughout each stage of the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine analysis.40 This Court
looks at whether proposed comparators are “similarly situated employees” within the meaning of
the Mitchell-Ercegovich line of cases.41
38Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, 581 F.3d 383, 391 (6th Cir. 2009).
39Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard, 692 F.3d 523, 530 (6th Cir. 2012).
40White v. Duke Energy-Kentucky, Inc., 603 F. App’x 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2015).
41Id.

-- 9 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
10
In order to be similarly situated, employees must be similar in “all relevant respects.”42
The plaintiff need not demonstrate an exact correlation with the employee who received more
favorable treatment. However, courts “should make an independent determination as to the
relevancy of a particular aspect of the plaintiff’s employment status and that of the non-protected
employee.”43 To be deemed similarly situated, the individual with whom the plaintiff seeks to
compare her treatment must have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the
same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish
their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.44
Kolack worked under “differentiating or mitigating circumstances that . . . distinguish
[Kolack’s] conduct”45 and distinguished Redflex’s treatment of Kolack’s employment. First,
Kolack had a significantly better sales history coming into the PIP. In roughly three years, Petzel
had executed three relatively small contracts; Kolack had executed eleven contracts in the same
period.46
Second, Redflex stopped selling to two of the three states in Kolack’s sales territory
because of operational and political challenges in Arizona and New Mexico. Petzel had no
comparable sales territory loss during her PIP.
Third, Darren Kolack secured two official contract awards during his PIP. However,
both contracts were terminated due to factors outside of Kolack’s control before the contracts
42Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998).
43Id.
44Hollins v. Atl. Co., 188 F.3d 652, 659 (6th Cir. 1999)(internal citation omitted).
45 Id.
46Kolack Dec. Exs. A, C, RE 48-1, PageID# 726, 730-31; Kolack Dec., 48-1, Page ID# 723.

-- 10 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
11
could proceed to completed sales. In contrast, Petzel secured no contract awards in the FY 2012
second quarter, ending December 31, 2011.47
Fourth and most importantly, during the PIP period, Redflex gave Darren Kolack
responsibility for the development and implementation of Student Guardian, a new product for
Redflex. Petzel was not involved in Student Guardian or any other Redflex development product.
At argument, Petzel argued that both Petzel and Kolack failed to meet their respective
PIP plans and that these failures made them similarly situated irrespective of any other
differences. But while Ercegovich held that comparators need not be identical, the Court in
Ercegovich explained that Mitchell does not require “a comparison between the employment
status of the plaintiff and other employees in every single aspect of their employment.”48
Ercegovich instructed that plaintiffs are “required to prove that all of the relevant aspects of his
employment were ‘nearly identical’ to those of the non-minority’s employment situation.”49
Each of the Kolack and Petzel differences are “differentiating or mitigating
circumstances that would distinguish [the employees’] conduct or the employer’s treatment of
them for it.”50 Kolack came to the PIP with more than three times Petzel’s sales history. Kolack
received two contract expressions during the PIP even though they did not result in contracts for
other reasons. Kolack’s sales territory had been reduced by two-thirds. And finally, during the
PIP, Redflex had assigned Kolack significant and time-consuming responsibilities for Student
Guardian.
47 Petzel argues that she obtained a contract award for Montgomery, Texas in the FY 2012 first quarter. The
Montgomery contract involved a town with only 600 residents, far smaller than towns Redflex usually sold to. The
Montgomery expression of intent to enter a contract never resulted in an actual contract. Perhaps more important,
Petzel’s PIP required one contract per quarter. Even if Petzel receives credit for the Montgomery, Texas contract,
she had no other contracts in the FY 2012 first two quarters of FY 2012.
48 Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998).
49 Id.
50 Id.

-- 11 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
12
Because of these differences, Kolack and Petzel were not similarly situated employees
for the purpose of showing that Redflex’s explanation for terminating Petzel was pretextual.
2. Kolack’s Testimony Is Not Enough To Prove Pretext.
Petzel alternatively argues that Kolack’s deposition testimony sufficiently shows pretext.
Kolack testified:
Q. So what Mr. Rosenberg conveyed to you about why you were not being
terminated was because you had met your plan objectives?
A. Correct.51
Apparently, Petzel argues that Supervisor Rosenberg had adjusted Kolack’s PIP sales
requirement but had not adjusted Petzel’s PIP sales requirements. As earlier described, Darren
Kolack had secured two official contract awards in his sales territory during the PIP. Those
contracts did not complete for reasons beyond Kolack’s control.
This deposition statement does not give rise to a genuine dispute of material fact with
respect to pretext. First, Redflex had directed Darren Kolack to spend significant time on the
Student Guardian project in the FY 2012 second quarter ending December 31, 2011. The
Business Development Transfer Plan that Rosenberg drafted and that Darren Kolack signed
explained that Redflex gave Kolack responsibility for Student Guardian because Kolack had
specialized skills and knowledge for the Student Guardian position. Kolack’s transfer plan also
explained that Kolack had a proven track record in securing awards and executing contracts for
Redflex.
The transfer plan acknowledged Kolack’s failure to fully succeed in the PIP as “partially
reflective of Redflex’s position not to actively pursue business in specific markets, including
51 Kolack Depo., R.E. 51-25, PageID# 1395.

-- 12 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
13
Arizona, which is Darren [Kolack]’s primary market.”52 Each of these contemporaneous
statements is consistent with Redflex’s reasons why Kolack was not similarly situated to Petzel
in December 2011. Rosenberg told Kolack that he wanted Kolack “to focus on Student Guardian
full-time.”53
Second, in a contemporaneous email with Redflex’s former HR Director, Sandra Stevens,
Sales Vice-President Rosenberg explained the decision to continue Kolack’s Student Guardian
assignment:
Obviously, this transfer is not being offered to Darren as a “deal”, Darren has
been focused (consumed) on this effort since June and it has consumed his time
and focus. As an organization, during Q1, we determined this is becoming a
corporate priority, as such, Darren is the most knowledge [sic] person in this
vertical and has lead all efforts in this solutions’ overall development.54
The evidence shows that Redflex kept Darren Kolack because he had some contracts
success, because Redflex had diminished Kolack’s sales potential when it withdrew from major
states that Kolack covered, and because Kolack had been directed to supervise the Student
Guardian project, an important project. Thus, Kolack’s testimony, about a conversation Kolack
vaguely recalled, is merely a scintilla of evidence, insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
3. Redflex Did Not Offer “Shifting Rationales.”
Petzel argues that Redflex has offered “shifting” rationales for Petzel’s termination.
Petzel points to then Redflex CEO Karen Finley’s deposition where Finley testified that Petzel’s
failure to meet the terms of her PIP was the “only” reason Petzel was fired. Petzel then argues
that in discovery responses Redflex also identified Petzel’s consistent failure to meet sales goals
52 Kolack Dec. Ex. C, RE 48-1, PageID# 730-31.
53 Kolack Dec., RE 48-1, PageID# 724.
54 Petzel Dec. Ex.1, RE 51-29, PageID# 1431-32.

-- 13 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
14
throughout her employment.55 Redflex also noted that Petzel had not been involved in Student
Guardian efforts.
Although Petzel’s low earlier sales led to the PIP, Petzel says it is a different justification
from Redflex’s explanation that Redflex fired Petzel for failing the PIP.
These additional reasons for Petzel’s termination do not establish pretext. They are
background to the decision to fire Petzel for failing to satisfy the PIP. Both are part of the same
justification: Redflex fired Petzel because she made almost no sales. With regard to its comment
on Petzel’s non-involvement with the Student Guardian project, Redflex noted the additional
reasons to explain why Redflex did not terminate Kolack’s employment, not to explain why
Redflex terminated Petzel’s employment.
4. Sales Manager Etzbach’s Statements To Petzel Do Not Constitute
Evidence Of Pretext.
Sales Manager Etzbach was Petzel’s direct supervisor and was consulted on the decision
to terminate Petzel. Etzbach agreed that Petzel should be terminated. Sales Manager Rosenberg
and CEO Karen Finley made the decision to fire Petzel.
Plaintiff Petzel testified that in a telephone call, Etzbach told her that he thought Petzel
was being discriminated against and that she should get a lawyer and file a lawsuit.56 Petzel
further testified that Etzbach told her that he had a “feeling” that she was “unfairly targeted” by
Rosenberg.57 Petzel does not produce any additional evidence proving that Etzbach made these
statements or what Etzbach’s “feeling” about Rosenberg was based upon.
55 First Set of Discovery Responses RE 51-26, PageID# 1407.
56 Petzel Depo. RE 51-24, PageID# 1229-31.
57 Id.

-- 14 of 15 --

No. 15-3671, Petzel v. Redflex Traffic
15
Etzbach testified that “throughout [Etzbach’s] employment with Redflex, [he] did not
witness any derogatory remarks by Rosenberg regarding Petzel’s gender or national origin.”58
Petzel’s testimony about her conversation with Etzbach is not admissible evidence.
While Etzbach is competent to testify regarding his own recommendation that Petzel be fired,
Petzel has not sufficiently alleged that Etzbach had the requisite personal knowledge to be
competent to testify regarding what motivated Karen Finley and Rosenberg to fire Petzel.
Petzel’s testimony about her conversation with Etzbach is therefore not sufficient to
reject Redflex’s proffered reason for terminating her employment.
5. It Is Unnecessary To Consider The Probationary Periods Of Other
Non-Australian Men.
Redflex offered evidence that between 2010 and 2012, it fired four male employees for
failing to satisfy sales quotas. Petzel also argues that the district court erred in considering the
probationary period or PIPs of other non-Australian male sales employees as evidence rebutting
Petzel’s claim of pretext. The District Court found that Sales Vice-President Rosenberg placed
four non-Australian male employees on probationary periods or PIPs between 2010-2012 and
that they were each either fired or forced to resign for not meeting the terms of their PIPs. Petzel
argues that none of those employees were similarly situated to her. Because we have found that
Kolack was not similarly situated to Petzel, we do not reach the question of whether the other
employees were similarly situated. Petzel has failed to satisfy her burden at the pretext stage.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court AFFIRMS the district court’s decision.
58 Etzbach Dec., RE 48-1, PageID# 810.

-- 15 of 15 --