regarding disciplinary practices, this court finds that the Defendants have satisfied their burden of producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. It is plausible that the specific incidents whereby Kielczynski received discipline, including her failure to properly search a prisoner and failing to respond to calls are so patently different from the actions of other male patrol officers that she would warrant a stricter type of discipline. However, at the same time, a legitimate inference of pretext is raised when, as Kielc-zynski’s evidence infers, similarly situated employees receive different disciplinary actions for what appears, in most instances, to be similar types of Department violations. See Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) In short, this court finds that when viewing
holding that one means of demonstrating pretext is to put forth evidence that employees outside the protected class who were involved in misconduct or comparable seriousness were not subject to similar adverse employment action holding that tolling does not apply to additional defendants who were not named in the class action holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences