“Contextual Conduct Comparator Doctrine” –
Mann v. Koch Foods of Ashland LLC (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In Belinda Mann v. Koch Foods of Ashland LLC, No. 24-10709 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a long-time African-American employee who alleged racial discrimination after being demoted for vulgar conduct toward a subordinate. The core dispute revolved around whether a white co-worker, Tina Morris, who used profanity while defending herself during a physical altercation, was a valid “similarly situated comparator” and whether a broader “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence could permit a jury to infer intentional discrimination.

The panel (Jordan, Branch, and Anderson, JJ.) issued a per curiam opinion that sharpened the comparator analysis by emphasizing the importance of context—particularly the distinction between offensive and defensive misconduct—and clarified that a plaintiff’s disciplinary history remains a decisive “material respect.” This commentary labels the ruling the “Contextual Conduct Comparator Doctrine” because it formally underscores that otherwise identical misconduct (e.g., profanity) can lose comparator value when it arises in markedly different factual settings.

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Ms. Mann failed (i) to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas because Tina Morris was not “similarly situated in all material respects,” and (ii) to present a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
• Key Findings:
  1. The profanity each woman used was superficially similar, but Tina’s was uttered during self-defense, whereas Mann’s was gratuitous and supervisory in nature.
  2. Mann’s lengthy disciplinary record materially distinguished her from Tina, who had none.
  3. Mann could not create a “convincing mosaic” because (a) there was no systemic better treatment of truly comparable employees, (b) timing and statements were not suspicious, and (c) the proffered justification (progressive discipline culminating in demotion) was not shown to be pretextual.
• Disposition: District court’s grant of summary judgment AFFIRMED.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The opinion, though unpublished, is doctrinally rich and references a constellation of Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court authorities:

• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Classic burden-shifting framework for Title VII cases.
• Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc) – Articulated the “similarly situated in all material respects” standard; provided four non-exhaustive comparator factors.
• Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300 (11th Cir. 2023) – Reinforced rigorous comparator analysis, particularly disparate disciplinary histories.
• Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243 (11th Cir. 2022) – Explored substantial-similarity and “convincing mosaic” doctrine.
• McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2024) – Clarified when “convincing mosaic” may substitute for comparator evidence.
• Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) – Seminal case on “convincing mosaic.”
• Procedural standards: Valley Drug (summary-judgment review), Allen v. Tyson Foods (inference drawing), Signor v. Safeco, and Patterson v. Georgia-Pacific (credibility at summary judgment).

Together these authorities framed the panel’s inquiry: whether differences in context and discipline were “material” enough to break comparator status and whether alternative circumstantial evidence could nevertheless compel trial.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Comparator Analysis

The court meticulously applied Lewis’ four-factor test:

1. Same basic misconduct? Both women used prohibited language—but “circumstances surrounding their respective outbursts were substantially different.” Tina’s profanity was reactive self-defense in a personal, non-supervisory context. Mann’s profanity was initiatory, supervisory, and work-related, exacerbating a subordinate-supervisor dynamic.
2. Same policy? Both violated Koch’s language policy. However, Tina’s violation was entangled with a bodily-integrity situation, while Mann’s was not—supporting the view that the employer’s response did not reflect racial animus but contextual discretion.
3. Same supervisor? Evident but not decisive because factors one and four were dispositive.
4. Disciplinary history? Mann: multiple write-ups (screaming at supervisors, ID badge, berating subordinates). Tina: pristine record. Consistent with Berry, dissimilar disciplinary background alone can defeat comparability.

Hence, the court coined no new rule but sharpened Lewis by illustrating that “conduct context”—whether the bad act is offensive or defensive—can be a “material respect,” inaugurating what this commentary calls the Contextual Conduct Comparator Doctrine.

b. “Convincing Mosaic” Analysis

Unable to clear the comparator hurdle, Mann argued that Tina’s favorable treatment, plus an alleged fraternization breach, formed a circumstantial “mosaic.” The panel disagreed:

• No suspicious timing or ambiguous statements of racial animus were identified.
• No systemic better treatment because Tina was not an apt comparator; the fight scenario was unique.
• No evidence that Koch’s proffered reason (progressive discipline culminating in demotion) was pretextual.

The court reiterated that the “convincing mosaic” test is not a free-floating equitable tool; it must still contain bricks that, taken together, compose a picture of intentional discrimination. Here, the mosaic had gaps—the “tiles” (comparator, timing, statements) did not fit.

3. Impact

This unpublished decision nonetheless carries precedential weight within the Eleventh Circuit’s persuasive universe and offers practical guidance:

• Comparator Context Matters – Employees and counsel must vet not only the nature of conduct but also its circumstances. Offensive vs. defensive misconduct, supervisory role, and purpose (work-related vs. personal) may independently negate similarity.
• Disciplinary Histories Remain Crucial – Even minor past infractions can de-rail comparator arguments when the comparator is discipline-free.
• Convincing Mosaic Threshold Clarified – The court implicitly raises the evidentiary bar: isolated favorable treatment of a non-comparator, absent suspicious comments or timing, rarely suffices.
• Employer Takeaway – Companies may treat misconduct differently when one employee acts in self-defense and another is the aggressor, provided they apply their policies consistently.
• Plaintiff Strategy – Future plaintiffs must marshal comparators with truly parallel fact patterns or build mosaics with documentary, testimonial, or statistical proof of bias.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Title VII – Federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Prima Facie Case – Initial showing a plaintiff must make to raise a presumption of discrimination; shifts burden of production to employer.
• “Similarly Situated Comparator” – A co-worker outside the plaintiff’s protected class who engaged in comparable misconduct under comparable circumstances but received more favorable treatment.
• Summary Judgment – A procedural device allowing courts to dispose of cases lacking genuine disputes of material fact, avoiding a trial.
• Convincing Mosaic – A holistic pattern of circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer discriminatory intent, even absent a tight comparator.
• Pretext – A false reason advanced by an employer to mask unlawful discrimination.

Conclusion

Mann v. Koch Foods affirms that contextual differences—such as self-defense versus supervisory aggression—and disciplinary history can be independently dispositive in comparator analysis under Title VII. It simultaneously restrains the reach of the “convincing mosaic” theory, reminding litigants that circumstantial evidence must cohere into an integrated narrative of bias. The decision thus advances what this commentary calls the Contextual Conduct Comparator Doctrine, signaling to the Eleventh Circuit bar that the “all material respects” inquiry is both qualitative and situational.

Looking forward, practitioners should scrupulously evaluate contextual nuances and disciplinary trajectories before asserting comparator-based claims, and they should assemble a mosaic of evidence meticulously, ensuring that every tile contributes meaningfully to the picture of discriminatory intent. Employers, for their part, must continue to document factual differences in workplace incidents to justify disparate disciplinary outcomes and withstand judicial scrutiny under Title VII.