Sixth Circuit Rejects Claims After Plaintiff's Public, Profane and Unprofessional Attacks on Colleagues

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer ‘s summary judgment on Title VII, Rehabilitation Act and First Amendment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a professor after the plaintiff’s request to transfer to the main campus was denied.  Patterson v. Kent State Univ., No. 24-3940 (6^th Cir. Sept 12, 2025).   There was no evidence that plaintiff’s gender identity was ever discussed or considered in the decision.  The sole stray remark about the plaintiff’s mental stability  -- in light of the unprofessional comments being made -- was insufficient upon which to base a disability discrimination claim.   The employer had sufficient reason for its actions in light of the plaintiff’s unprofessional and profane attacks on colleagues, and resignation from service.   There was also no evidence that the decisionmakers were aware of any protected activities at the time of the decisions.  Finally, complaints about colleagues were not mattes of public concern entitled to First Amendment protections. “Complaining about and insulting your coworkers simply doesn’t implicate a matter of public concern.”

According to the Court’s decision, the plaintiff tenured professor requested to be considered to Chair a dormant Center that had been suspended pending a reorganization.  Although the position was not open, the Dean agreed to reallocate half of the plaintiff’s teaching load so that the plaintiff could develop new course material for the dormant Center if it were to be resurrected.  The plaintiff was contacted by the Chair of the School where the Center would be housed about joining the planning committee.  The plaintiff was unhappy that the Dean and Chair would be in charge of the Center and began attacking them – using profanity and derogatory terms about their gender – on social media and in emails to other colleagues. “So to sum up, Patterson condemned both Mazzei and Munro-Stasiuk as “transphobe[s]” and “cishet white ladies in charge, with [no] content expertise,” engaged in “F*ckery,” “shit,” “trans antagonism,” and “epistemic violence” who were “quite literally killing [me].”   After a few weeks of this and plaintiff’s refusal to meet and discuss the stated concerns, the Dean cancelled the planned teaching allocation.   The plaintiff did not respond, but cancelled “and instead resigned from university service commitments.”  The Chair issued general invitations to join the gender studies and Center committees, but the plaintiff did not respond.  Instead, the plaintiff bullied those who did join the committee through tweets and applied to transfer to the main campus.  The requisite committees held a joint meeting, discussed the plaintiffs resignation from service, negative interaction with faculty colleagues and the department’s need and voted 12-2 against the transfer request.  The Dean requested that they reconvene and vote separately, which they did.  The result was the same and the plaintiff’s gender identity was never mentioned.

Title VII Discrimination

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that denial of the transfer request was direct evidence of gender discrimination when there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s gender identity was ever mentioned or discussed.   Because an inference of discrimination would be required, the decision could not be direct evidence in and of itself.

[The plaintiff] also points to the committees’ discussion of whether the English department needed more faculty with backgrounds in LGBT studies, claiming that this is direct evidence of discrimination. That argument conflates a professor’s scholarly discipline with a professor’s personal traits.  . . . . An Italian person may offer to teach Italian classes, but if a university doesn’t need more Italian classes, that’s not direct evidence of animus against Italian people. So there’s no direct evidence of discrimination.

The Court agreed that the denial of the transfer request could be an adverse employment action under Title VII because it inflicted some harm.   Nonetheless, the employer clearly had a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for its actions in revoking the teaching reallocation and denying the transfer request:

[The employer] had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for what it did. [The plaintiff] sent rude and profanity-laced tweets, emails, and texts insulting [the Dean] and [the Chair], including disparaging references to their race, sex, and occupations. Those messages violated university policy against attacking colleagues or their academic fields. And they easily provided reasonable grounds—having nothing do to with sex or gender—for disciplining or reprimanding an employee. . . .

[The employer] also had legitimate reasons to deny the campus tenure-transfer application. The evidence shows that [the plaintiff’s] lack of collegiality and decision to quit university service committees played a part. The classes [the plaintiff] wanted to teach also didn’t fit with the main campus English department’s curriculum and needs at that time. And the department wanted to preserve its ability to hire a new tenure-track professor the next year; it worried that a lateral hire from a regional campus would use up that spot. This is standard stuff for tenure decisions.

The Court finally concluded that the plaintiff could not show that these explanations were pretextual – or a disguise - - for unlawful discrimination.  “A plaintiff can establish pretext in several ways, such as by showing that the defendant’s articulated reasons had no factual basis, didn’t in fact motivate the action, or could not warrant the action taken.  . . . But there’s no evidence here to support any of those theories.”

[The employer’s] decisions had ample basis in fact. The record contains many disparaging tweets, emails, and texts, which led to a toxic work environment. And that factual basis was more than enough to warrant some kind of response. [The Dean and the Chair] were both originally excited to work with [the plaintiff]. They only changed course after the hostile tweets and texts. The tenure-transfer rejection likewise bears no indicia of pretext. The same English department had voted to unanimously to grant [the plaintiff] tenure less than a year before. If the committee members were biased against transgender people, wouldn’t they have shown it then? What’s more, after the committees voted “no” on the first transfer vote, [the Dean] realized that they hadn’t followed the right procedures. So she had them vote again. If she was biased, why not just leave the “no” vote at that? Why erase the vote and give [the plaintiff] another shot? No evidence suggests that [the employer’s] true motivation was animus against anyone’s sex or gender identity.

Title VII Retaliation

The Court also rejected the Title VII retaliation claim.  It agreed that the plaintiff could show protected opposition activities:

First, an email to a university official, Amoaba Gooden, in which [the plaintiff] resigned as a university DEI representative and complained that [the employer] wasn’t a “safe or welcoming place for trans faculty.”  . . .  Second, an email to Professor M’Baye, the English department chair, in which [the plaintiff] stepped back from service on a university “DEI Strategic Planning Process.”  . . . . Third, an email to Kathy Davis-Patterson, another faculty member, in which [the plaintiff] reported on “inequity” and “transphobes” at [the employer].  . . . . Fourth, an email to Deb Smith, who worked with the faculty union. In this email, [the plaintiff] resigned as a union representative, citing “inequity and discrimination in the workplace” at [the employer]. . . .

However, the second email never mentioned any protected activity or opposition, but instead, cited only health concerns.   Therefore, it could not be a protected activity.  In addition, the plaintiff could not show that the Center position had been filled by anyone, so there was no adverse action there.  Moreover, some of the protected activities took place after the Dean had revoked the teaching reallocation.  Finally, the remaining emails were unknown to the Dean and the tenure committees.  when the teaching reallocation was revoked.    Therefore, they could not have motivated any retaliation.

First Amendment

As for the First Amendment claims, the Court found that the plaintiff’s derogatory tweets did not touch on matters of public concern, but rather  were “complaints about other Kent State faculty members and their workplace decisions—“employee beef,” plain and simple,” which are not entitled to First Amendment protection. “The tweets are insulting, disparaging, and targeted. They use profanities, and they describe [the Dean and Chair] in terms of their race and sex. Complaining about and insulting your coworkers simply doesn’t implicate a matter of public concern.”

[The plaintiff] frames the tweets as publicizing [the employer]s alleged transphobia and exposing discrimination in the workplace. In fairness, a few tweets do make more general references that sound less like targeted insults. For example, one tweet states: “Academia is fundamentally racist, heterosexist, cissexist, ableist, classist & sexist.”  . . . . In isolation, perhaps that qualifies as protected speech.  . . . . But the tweet is swarmed on either side by other attacks on [the Dean and Chair]. Indeed, that same tweet’s very next sentence accuses [the Chair] of “violen[ce].”  . . . . A public employee can’t blend protected speech with “caustic personal attacks against colleagues,” and then use the protected speech to immunize those attacks. . . .

And even if the tweets did involve a matter of public concern, they still wouldn’t receive protection. [The employer’s] interest as an employer in administering effective public services outweighs Patterson’s interest in this kind of trash talk. . ..

There’s a way to raise awareness of discrimination without engaging in profanity-laced and race- and sex-based aspersions against colleagues. The tweets created serious strife within the [the employer] community, causing [the Dean and Chair] to feel harassed and insulted. And it led to a dysfunctional work environment for several months. [The Chair] had to text [the Dean], for example: “I’m really thinking continuing [having [the plaintiff] involved] is unhealthy for the potential program and school, at this point. It’s clearly already having an impact. I have concerns.”  . . . . [The Dean] also testified to how noxious things had gotten. “The foundation of [revoking the offer],” she stated, “was the toxic, hostile tweets that [the plaintiff] had been posting over the course of over a month . . . . [I]t was escalating, continually targeting [the Chair], in particular, continually targeting [other professors], to a certain extent myself.”  . . . . The Dean discussed how [the plaintiff] had “show[n] over, and over, and over again” a refusal to be collaborative or respectful and was “completely trying to undermine the process.”  . . . . In short, [the plaintiff] had compromised any “ability to lead any initiative” and any “ability to work in the Center, or the [major.]”

[The employer’s] business is educating students. When an employee seriously undercuts the university’s power to do its basic job, the Constitution doesn’t elevate the employee over the public that [the employer] exists to serve. All told, “[t]he First Amendment does not require a public employer to tolerate an embarrassing, vulgar, vituperative, ad hominem attack, even if such an attack touches on a matter of public concern.”  . . .  When “the manner and content of an employee’s speech is disrespectful, demeaning, rude, and insulting, and is perceived that way in the workplace, the government employer is within its discretion to take disciplinary action.”

Rehabilitation Act

Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim at the prima facie stage because it was based on one stray comment where concern was expressed by another professor about the plaintiff’s mental stability.

This isolated comment is not the kind of evidence that courts have found satisfies the “regarded as disabled” definition. “Personality conflicts among coworkers (even those expressed through the use (or misuse) of mental health terminology) generally do not establish a perceived impairment on the part of the employer.”  . . . . [The professor’s] remark simply expressed her concern about [the plaintiff’s] uncollegial and unprofessional attitude. At most, it is a “mere scintilla” of evidence—insufficient to survive summary judgment.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Jury Upholds Employee's Termination After Admission of Post-Incident Evidence Reflecting Subjective Consent to Alleged Harassment.

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s jury verdict on Title VII  retaliatory discharge claims where the employee had alleged that she was raped by a security guard, but the employer contended that the contact was consensual and violated its policy when she was still on-the-clock.  Graf v. Morristown-Hamblen Hosp. Ass’n, No. 24-5798 (6^th Cir. 9-10-25).  Summary judgment was granted to the employer on her hostile work environment claims, which were not part of this appeal.  Evidence of her post-incident interactions and communications with the guard were relevant to show whether she subjectively believed that he violated Title VII during the alleged incident and, thus, whether she engaged in protected conduct when she reported that he had raped her.  The jury believed that the incident was consensual, and thus, she did not have a good faith belief that she was reporting a Title VII violation.  The trial judge did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 412 when he permitted the introduction of such evidence – limited to her interaction with that particular security guard –as evidence of her subjective belief regarding consent.

According to the Court’s decision, the plaintiff became friendly with a security guard, hired through a contractor of the employer.  They exchanged hundreds of texts and frequently met during breaks in stairwells and other places.  The guard contended that they sometimes discussed intimidate details, but the plaintiff disagreed that she ever initiated such conversations.  One day, at the guard’s invitation, the plaintiff snuck during her lunch break – when she was not required to clock out -- into an unauthorized area to avoid being seen by the employer’s security cameras.  She contended that she was handcuffed and raped.  He contended it was consensual and she never used their before-agreed safe words.  She did not report the incident and returned to work after crying in the bathroom.  However, they continued to text and exchange naked photos of each other after the alleged rape.  She claimed that she had been to afraid to not comply. Six weeks later, she learned from his supervisor that he had been accused of sexual harassment by other female staff and she then reported the rape.  He was fired. 

When the employer’s HR learned of it, they also interviewed her, but did not conduct a further investigation since the guard had already been fired.  However, the employer decided to terminate her employment because she was in an unauthorized location, where she had snuck into to avoid being videotaped by security cameras, and had relations while still on the clock.   She brought suit for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.   The trial court dismissed the sexual harassment claim on summary judgment.  A jury ruled in the employer’s favor after the court admitted evidence about her alleged consent to the interaction with the guard -- as reflected in the post-incident texts, photos and videos -- and rejected her allegation that she had been fired for reporting the alleged rape to the guard’s supervisor.

The trial court refused to admit evidence about her conversations with others about her sexual preferences and videos that she had exchanged with the guard.  However, it admitted the texts and photos which she exchanged with the guard after the incident and the fact that she had also sent videos.  The court found the jury could decide whether she had consented or not in determining whether she had a good faith and reasonable belief that her conduct was protected by Title VII.   The Sixth Circuit agreed that this did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 412.

Rule 412 provides in relevant part that certain evidence is not admissible. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 prohibits the admission of two types of evidence in cases involving sexual misconduct: “(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or (2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.”

However, the second part of the Rule as exceptions in civil cases: “the court may admit evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.”  This Rule interacts with sexual harassment cases in cases like these where the plaintiff’s consent is an issue.  In this case, the plaintiff's consent was an issue as to whether she subjectively believed that the guard had violated Title VII when she reported him. 

“[a] person opposing an apparently discriminatory practice does not bear the entire risk that it is in fact lawful; he or she must only have a good faith belief that the practice is unlawful . . . . In the years since Booker, we have interpreted this language to mean that, in order to prove that they engaged in protected conduct, a retaliation claimant must demonstrate “that the opposition [was] based on ‘a reasonable and good faith belief that the opposed practices were unlawful.’” . . .

In holding that the protected-conduct element of a retaliation claim includes this reasonable and good-faith requirement, however, we have been careful to clarify that “the operative question is not whether [the complained of] conduct was actually unlawful, but whether Plaintiff held an objectively reasonable and good faith belief to that effect.”  . . .  A retaliation claimant therefore “does not need to oppose actual violations of Title VII in order to be protected from retaliation.” . . .

The dispute at the center of this case lies at the intersection of these two concepts. In alleging that [the employer] retaliated against her for opposing sexual assault, [The plaintiff] can succeed on her retaliation claim even if [the guard’s] conduct was not, as a legal or factual matter, sexual assault. But [she] must prove that she had a reasonable and good-faith belief that the conduct of which she complained was unlawful under Title VII. In other words, she must show that her belief that she was raped was reasonable and in good faith.

Importantly, the plaintiff was not required to prove that she was the victim of a sexual assault, but she was

required to demonstrate her reasonable and good-faith belief that [the guard’s] conduct violated Title VII. And [the employer]  was entitled to introduce evidence rebutting [her] alleged good-faith belief in the purported violative conduct she had reported, including evidence that [she] had consented to the sexual encounter, because such evidence was directly relevant to the reasonableness of [her] belief in whether Title VII prohibits that conduct. . . . 

 . . . . But our inquiry is not whether a rape violates Title VII (it does)—our inquiry is whether [she] had a good-faith belief that [he] raped her at work. Therefore, although we need not determine whether [he] raped [her], we must consider whether [she] “held an objectively reasonable and good faith belief” that she reported a legitimate rape. . . .

To be sure, we have noted that a lack of reasonable and good-faith belief may stem from “an unreasonable mistake of law.” Wasek, 682 F.3d at 469. And a retaliation plaintiff could make an unreasonable mistake of law by believing that conduct outside the scope of Title VII’s protections was conduct falling within the statute’s protections. But we have also stated that a plaintiff may fail to satisfy the reasonable and good-faith belief standard where “there are not facts from which a plaintiff could have reasonably believed that a violation occurred.” Id. And while we have yet explicitly to so hold, several of our sister circuits have made clear that Title VII retaliation plaintiffs do not engage in protected conduct when they make a false, fabricated, or malicious complaint of unlawful conduct because such plaintiffs do not reasonably and in good faith believe in the truth of their complaint.  . . . (emphasis added).

 . . . . The district court thus did not err in concluding that, in proving her retaliation claim to a jury, Graf was required to demonstrate that she reasonably and in good faith believed that, when she made her complaint against Ogle, she was reporting a rape. “Whether she actually held such a belief, a question of credibility,” was necessarily “left to [the] jury.” 

The Court agreed that propensity evidence must still be excluded as would reputational evidence.  What was relevant was her subjective belief as evidenced by her own actions with the security guard.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

In the Game of Thrones, You Either Win Or You Die

 Yesterday, a unanimous Sixth Circuit affirmed a Columbus nursing home’s summary judgment on claims of retaliatory discharge on the grounds that the plaintiff employee had failed to produce evidence of pretext for each of the employer’s stated explanations for terminating her employment.   Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall LLC, No. 24-3292 (6^th Cir. 3/5/25).  The Court found that the employer was justified to terminate her for secretly recording workplace conversations which included confidential patient information because it undermined workplace trust and created potential patient liability.  Further, she failed to prove that any similarly situated employee had comparably poor attendance.  Finally, she similarly failed to prove that it was pretextual to terminate her employment when she had told the HR Director that she was already looking for another job.   Accordingly, even if she proved a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge for engaging in protected activities in opposing allegedly illegal conduct towards employees and patients, her claims were dismissed because the employer articulated at least one non-discriminatory/retaliatory reason for terminating her employment which she failed to prove was mere pretext for illegal retaliation.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired in November 2021 as the Director of Social Services and was terminated after four months.  In the last six weeks of her employment, she was late for the daily morning meeting 11 times and  missed 8.5 days without prior authorization.  She was unclear with Mt. Carmel hospital  on February 25 about whether the nursing home would take back a patient with significant psychological issues, which lead to threats of a government investigation.   She complained about patient care and on March 1 complained to the HR Director about the Executive Director’s insensitive, unprofessional and potentially discriminatory statements and actions towards staff and claimed that she was secretly taping workplace conversations in order to gather evidence.  (There is no indication that she was successful).  She also claimed that she and other directors were looking for another job and intended to resign if he was not replaced. 

In the meantime, the Executive Director had taken steps to clarify who had the authority to refuse a patient admission and had begun preparing a disciplinary action against the plaintiff concerning her attendance.   However, when he went to meet with her on March 1, she had already left work early, again without authorization.   The HR Director had already escalated the issue to the regional director, who began investigating the plaintiff’s concerns.  On March 2, the plaintiff had a heated confrontation with the Executive Director during the morning meeting about the patient and left the unfinished meeting and work, again without authorization.  The Executive Director then involved the VP of HR, who joined the existing investigation.  When the plaintiff was interviewed, she again indicated that she had been secretly recording workplace conversations in attempting to get evidence against the Executive Director.  The investigation failed to substantiate her allegations and she was fired a week later.  Litigation ensued and the employer was granted summary judgment on all claims.

The Court of Appeals held that she had to prove that all of the employer’s stated reasons for terminating her employment were pretextual in order to survive summary judgment.  Although it agreed that there were factual disputes about the misunderstanding with Mt. Carmel, it concluded that she failed to prove that employer lacked a basis for terminating her for (1) secretly recording workplace conversations that included confidential patient information; (2) poor attendance and (3) seeking another job with the intention to resign because she did not want to return to work.

Even if courts find some reasons pretextual, if “at least one other is not, the defendant employer is still entitled to summary judgment.”  . . . .  In other words, if the employer proffers a single independent nondiscriminatory reason for its conduct, that can defeat a retaliation claim.

The Court rejected her argument that she could not be legally fired for secretly recording workplace conversations because it was not illegal and the employer had not prohibited it in any policy.   The HR VP found this to undermine trust in the workplace and created a risk of liability to employer because each of the three recordings made included confidential patient information.  “But the lack of an official policy or law prohibiting the behavior does not itself demonstrate pretext  . . . And an employer may terminate an employee whose actions undermine the employer’s trust.”  In addition, employers “may terminate an employee for creating legal risk for the company,” which included potential exposure of protected health information without the patient’s informed consent.

The Court also rejected her argument that he attendance could not have motivated her termination because on March 1, the Executive Director only intended to warn her.  However, the also walked out early on March 1 and 2.  Further, she failed to produce evidence that any similarly situated employees had comparatively poor attendance.    She had to do more than identify a comparable co-worker.   Moreover, it was not the Executive Director’s decision to terminate her; it was the HR VP’s decision and she was not required to follow his recommendation of disciplinary action.

Finally, the Court agreed that the employer had shown an honest belief that the plaintiff did not want to return to work based on her comments to the HR Director about seeking another job and her statements to the VP that she did not feel comfortable working in the building because it was a toxic environment and she felt gaslighted.   It was apparently irrelevant that she also told the VP (on a recorded call) that she loved her job and the residents.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Finds Adult Sibling Could be "Child" Under In Loco Parentis FMLA Theory and False Unemployment Compensation Answers Could Be Retaliatory

Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff employee could qualify as in loco parentis for her adult sister and, thus, be eligible for FMLA leave. Chapman v.  Brentlinger Enterprises, No. 23-2582 (6^th Cir. 12/13/24).   It also remanded on the grounds to determine whether the employer retaliated against her for seeking FMLA leave and for being associated with an individual with a disability based on it, among other things, providing false information to dispute her unemployment compensation claim and telling her to choose between her job and her sister.   It affirmed that the employer did not retaliate for threatening to seek Rule 11 sanctions for pursuing a frivolous FMLA claim and for imposing $85/day fines for failing to send the mandatory COBRA notice.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff employee’s sister, who lived in Louisville, was dying from cancer and the plaintiff (who worked in Columbus) was helping her other sister (who apparently lived in another state) to care for her.  Her request for FMLA leave was denied because she was not the parent.  However, she was given paid and unpaid leave and her work schedule was reduced to permit her more time off.  That being said, she alleged that the HR Representative indicated that she should choose between her sister and her job.  When her healthy sister’s flight was delayed, she claimed to have attempted to contact her employer on Sunday night to let them know that she would be late on Monday.  However, the text was not received until mid-Monday morning, after the employer attempted to call her when she was late reporting to work, and she was terminated.  Her sister died two days later.  The employer apparently informed the unemployment office that she abandoned her job, disenrolled her from the medical plan the next month, but then failed to send her a COBRA notice.  When her lawyer threatened to file suit under the ADA, the employer’s lawyer threatened to see sanctions under Rule 11.

The trial court agreed that the FMLA does not allow for time off to care for a sibling and could not be “in loco parentis” unless that parental relationship or the serious illness began while the sibling was a minor. Otherwise, the list of enumerated relationships covered by the FMLA would be meaningless.  The court explained that “if merely caring for someone with a serious ailment could create an ‘in loco parentis’ relationship, then anyone who took time off to care for a seriously ill nephew, cousin, or friend would have an ‘in loco parentis’ relationship with that person.”

 However, the appellate court found that it was an issue of fact. In examining the FMLA, it concluded the statute and regulations to be ambiguous about when the parental relationship must have begun.  It found no requirement that it must begin before the onset of the serious illness.  It then looked at common law decisions (concerning mostly cases about survivorship benefits) and found that a cousin, sibling or aunt could qualify as a parent depending on the circumstances even though the relationship did not begin until adulthood. 

While the FMLA tells us what protections are available for in loco parentis parents and their children, this case hinges on whether [the plaintiff] was an in loco parentis parent at all. The FMLA neither defines “in loco parentis” nor specifies how or when these relationships form. We know that the FMLA contemplates in loco parentis relationships that involve children who are eighteen or older. After all, the FMLA states that an employee, including an in loco parentis parent, can take time off to care for a sick child over the age of eighteen if that child has a disability that renders them incapable to care for themselves. Id. § 2611(12)(B). But in that situation, the text does not say whether the in loco parentis relationship or the child’s disability must have started during the child’s minority. The text also does not specify whether the in loco parentis relationship must predate the child’s incapacity. Resolving this case requires us to answer those questions.

 . . .

we drew an analogy to legal adoption, which is not limited to minors. Id. The definition of an in loco parentis relationship from the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure centered on adoption: “A person standing in loco parentis to a child is one who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation, without going through the formalities necessary to a legal adoption.” . . . .

 . . . [The employer] argues that Niewiadomski—which also surveyed the common law—weighs in its favor because there, we observed that an in loco parentis relationship “is essentially different from the relationship of brother and sister,” which does “not include the legal obligations existing between parent and child.”  . . .  But that observation just restates an obvious point: when a person acts in loco parentis to another, they take on duties of care and support that surpass what is typically shown toward a sibling. The observation does not rule out the possibility that a sibling could take on those duties. And Niewiadomski explicitly declined to rule on the question of whether a deceased cousin’s adulthood foreclosed the possibility that an in loco parentis relationship formed when his slightly older cousin took him in.

 . . . .

Therefore, reading the FMLA against the backdrop of the common law, we conclude that in loco parentis relationships can form between adults, including adults who also happen to be siblings. Contrary to the district court’s reading, the “child” in the in loco parentis relationship need not be a minor at the time the relationship forms, have developed a debilitating condition as a minor, or have developed that condition before the relationship formed. Indeed, under the common law, a debilitating condition was not a requirement at all.

It also concluded that she had alleged sufficient facts to warrant reconsideration, although it was still unclear whether she would qualify under the common law standard as a parent instead of as a sibling who shared care-giving duties with another sibling. “The district court’s concern assumes that ‘merely caring for someone with a serious ailment’ creates an in loco parentis relationship. As we describe later, that’s not so; it requires a more robust relationship.”    The court’s decision indicates that:

Between June 20 and 25, [the plaintiff] used her allotted paid time off to travel to Kentucky to take care of [her dying sister]. [She] alleges that she supported her sister financially by paying some portion of her bills and buying groceries and other essential household items. She also cooked her sister’s meals and hand fed her, helped her use the bathroom, cleaned her up when she was incontinent, brushed her hair and teeth, and took care of her apartment by cleaning, taking out the trash, and doing laundry. She managed some of her sister’s medical needs by administering over-the-counter medications, using massage tools and hot-and-cold packs, and shifting her around in bed to prevent bed sores. She also provided emotional support. [Her] other sister  . . . . provided similar care to [the dying sister] during the same period. On some days, [the plaintiff] or [her other sister] took care of [the dying sister] alone, and on others, the sisters divided the responsibilities. [The other sister] was [the dying sister’s] medical power of attorney. When [the plaintiff] ran out of paid days off, [the employer] allowed her to take unpaid leave at its discretion, but it was unclear for how long.

A number of factors remain to be explored.

The touchstone of this inquiry is intention. As Lord Cottenham observed in synthesizing Lord Eldon and Sir Grant’s definitions, “the principal value” in the definition of in loco parentis is “the intention, rather than . . . the act of the party.”  . . .  Accordingly, we ask not just whether a person has taken on the role of a parent by “assuming obligations” of a parental nature, but also whether they have done so “with the intention” of serving as a parent.  . . .  It’s not enough that a person has provided for another as a parent might, though that “raises a strong inference that the person had assumed the character of a parent.” Id. The person “must have intended to assume” that role.  . . . . Other circuits examining the common law agree, emphasizing that “the loco parentis relationship is such that it must reside in the minds and hearts of the parties involved.”

But how do we know adult parties intended to assume a parental relationship? In some cases, we have relied on direct evidence that the parties thought of themselves as parent and child, including their internal communications and statements to others that they perceived themselves as being akin to a “mother” or “son.” Mainly, however, courts have relied on indirect evidence to discern the parties’ intent. Courts look for “objective manifestations” of a parent-child relationship, including “the kind of service done and the kind of thing given.” Banks, 267 F.2d at 538–39.

                   . . .

Juxtaposing two of our precedents provides helpful guidance. In both Niewiadomski and Thomas, an adult relative—who either had no immediate family or was estranged from immediate family—came to live with an older relative (though the cousin in Niewiadomski was only a few months older, while the aunt in Thomas was about two decades older).  . . . The cases have many similarities. We noted in both that the alleged in loco parentis parent took her cousin or nephew into her home and provided lodging, a seat at the table for meals, medical care, and clothing.  . . . The alleged in loco parentis children also accompanied the families on vacations, exchanged gifts on the holidays, and contributed to household chores.  . . .  And in both cases, the younger relatives later served in the military and designated their aunt or cousin as the beneficiary of their statutorily provided military life insurance, identifying the relationship as parental . . .  Both servicemen died while serving in the military, and the cousin in Niewiadomski and aunt in Thomas sought to collect as the in loco parentis parent.  . . .

Yet in Niewiadomski we held there was no in loco parentis relationship, while in Thomas, we held there was.  . . . This distinction rested on several key factors. Perhaps most significant, we focused on the direct evidence of how the relatives thought of one another. Recall that the “intention” to take on a parental role is critical, so in Niewiadomski, the older cousin’s own testimony that they referred to one another as “brother” and “sister” and that “she considered the insured as a brother, and not as a child” was the “most conclusive factor” in the case.  . . . . Contrast that with Thomas. While in the army, the nephew sent his aunt “intimate letters of affection,” including a “so-called ‘Mother-gram’” on Mother’s Day, concluding with: “You are a wonderful Mother.”

The Court also remanded to reconsider the retaliation claim.  The plaintiff alleged that co-workers with poor attendance were not terminated under similar circumstances and, if that she was not fired for being absent but in retaliation for having requested FMLA leave (even if she ultimately were not eligible for FMLA leave).   Also, the employer provided false information to oppose her unemployment compensation claim by claiming that she abandoned her job when it was admitted that she was fired and that she had not quit or abandoned her job.

A jury could find that making false statements to an unemployment authority is a “plainly adverse repercussion on [the plaintiff] and her family” because it can result in “the loss of income associated with unemployment benefits.”  . . .  The false statements, or threat thereof, may require a plaintiff to choose whether to “seek vindication” of her rights or “risk a former employer’s intentional efforts to . . . stymie her receipt of income.” Id. And they could reasonably dissuade her from choosing the former.

Interestingly, it did not find the threat of Rule 11 sanctions to be retaliatory because lawyers are supposed to send such a letter before filing a Rule 11 motion.

The Court also remanded the plaintiff’s ADA claim.  Although she was not entitled to leave under the ADA to care for her sister, it would violate the ADA to fire her because of her association with her dying sister.   She alleged that the HR Representative had told her that she should choose between her sister and her job and she was fired when she was late returning to work from caring for her sister.  She alleged that the employer made a discriminatory assumption that her sister was distracting her from her job duties. “The ADA thus prevents an employer from terminating an employee based on “unfounded fears that [the employee] would be distracted at work on account of” a loved one’s disability."

Finally, the Court affirmed the $85/day fine for failing to provide the plaintiff with the mandatory COBRA notice.  It maximum fine is $110/day. “ The district court reasoned that Chapman had not produced evidence that MAG violated COBRA in bad faith, but that she had shown she was “significantly prejudiced by the lack of notice.”  . . .  Because she did not receive notice of her coverage options under COBRA, Chapman did not acquire health insurance until May 2020. Without coverage, she delayed treatment for a condition she later discovered was malignant skin cancer.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Butler County Court of Appeals Alters Summary Judgment Standard in Employment Discrimination Cases

Last week, a divided Butler County Court of Appeals reversed a car dealership’s summary judgment on claims of discriminatory compensation and public policy wrongful discharge brought by a six-month employee who claimed that she had been fired for reporting COVID and rodent issues to OSHA and who had been not been paid promised bonuses.  Johnson v. Cincy Automall, Inc., 2024-Ohio-5749.  While the Court was unanimous that she could pursue her wrongful discharge claim, a divided court held that the traditional burden shifting used for decades in all employment discrimination cases no longer applied in summary judgment cases.  Rather, the plaintiff as the non-moving party with the admitted ultimate burden of proof was not required to produce evidence supporting her claim or prima facie case until the employer/moving party disproved her allegations with actual evidence of its own in its motion.    In addition, the court's majority held that she could show that she was similarly situated without reference to a comparison of job duties or terms and conditions of employment based solely on her allegation that she had not been paid her earned bonus while male employees (with different jobs and terms and conditions of employment) had been paid their earned bonuses. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired in July 2020 to manage the Facebook page, implement new software and develop sales leads for sales staff.  She was promised a weekly salary and monthly bonuses that were based on developed sales leads.   However, she was never paid any bonus and alleged the owner claimed that he could not afford to pay her, but he did pay the sales people (who were mostly male).  (The dissent notes that the owner apparently admitted that he owed her some unpaid bonuses).   When he ignored her concerns about non-compliance with COVID protocols and mouse feces, she reported her concerns to OSHA on December 15.  She claimed that her computer and FB access was revoked the next day and she was fired a week later.  The dealership denied this and claimed that she voluntarily resigned after being offered a transfer to an administrative position.  OSHA investigated and determined in March that she had not been fired for engaging in protected activities.  She brought suit in May, claiming unspecified sex discrimination and harassment, breach of contract, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.   The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, except notably, the breach of contract.   She appealed and a divided court of appeals reversed dismissal of the claims of discriminatory compensation (i.e., payment of the bonuses) and wrongful discharge.

The trial court dismissed the public policy claims on the basis that there were no clear public policies underlying the employer’s COVID practices and the rodent infestation.   Although the Court unanimously reversed this decision, this same Court had previously upheld the discharge of an HR Director on the grounds that COVID was not a workplace safety issue, but a general public health issue. The plaintiff “contend[ed] that COVID hazards and a mice infestation are matters of workplace health and safety and that an at-will employee who is fired for filing a complaint with OSHA concerning matters of health and safety in the workplace states a valid claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.”  Importantly “she invoked the OSH Act's anti-retaliation provision in 29 U.S.C. 660(c).”   Ohio’s leading Supreme Court case on wrongful discharge claims – Kulch v. Structural Fibers – recognized a claim for retaliation for filing a claim with OSHA.   Other, later cases recognized claims for similar internal complaints. 

It is crucial to emphasize that the threshold for protection under this public policy is not the ultimate validity of the complaint, but rather the employee's good faith belief in its legitimacy. As the Ohio Supreme Court observed in Kulch, to require otherwise would risk deterring employees from reporting genuine health and safety concerns, which would undermine the policy favoring workplace safety.  . . .  This principle also finds support in federal law surrounding one of the main sources of the public policy, 29 U.S.C. 660(c).

The Court distinguished its former public policy/COVID decision on the grounds that the HR Director was not expressing safety concerns, “but rather for disagreeing with her employer's COVID-response protocol. Specifically, she advised an infected employee to quarantine for ten days contrary to her employer's order that the employee return to work.”  At that time, the Court did not view the employee’s objection to the employer’s refusal to honor a quarantine direction as an OSHA retaliation concern, but here, found the employee was expressing safety concerns (which focused on handwashing, sanitizers and unpaid leave for quarantines). 

All this being said, the Court refused to address the employer’s arguments refuting causation and its good reason for any adverse employment because these arguments had not been raised in its trial court motion or addressed by the trial court in its summary judgment decision.   While its review is de novo, it indicated that appellate courts should not address issues not raised by the trial court and, instead, would limit this decision to the scope of the trial court decision.  

A divided Court reversed the pay discrimination dismissal on the grounds that she had been denied bonuses which she had allegedly earned (and was the subject of a pending breach of contract claim), but male sales people were paid their bonuses.    At core, she was claiming that that the only reason she wasn’t paid for the bonuses that she earned was because she was female and the car salespeople (all but one of whom were male) were paid their bonuses because they were mostly male.    However, the Court’s majority criticized the trial court’s description of her claim as being that she was paid less than male employees for the same work when she held an administrative position and they were sales employees.  As far as the majority is concerned, she stated a discrimination claim when she compared the fact that she was not paid her earned bonus when male employees were paid their earned bonus, even if the terms of their bonus arrangements were based on different metrics and conditions.

 This question cuts to the heart of the "similarly situated" analysis, which requires us to determine whether the male comparators were similar "in all relevant respects."  . . .

 {¶ 39} It is imperative to note that there is no rigid, predetermined list of factors that must be considered in making this determination. As the Sixth Circuit aptly noted, a court must 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" based on the facts of the case.  . . .  This aligns with the Ohio Supreme Court's case law on this issue, which recognizes that "what is relevant depends on the case."

 . . .. In the present case, the minutiae of duties, job titles, or the particulars of bonus structures are of little consequence. What matters is the simple fact of entitlement to a bonus and payment—or lack thereof.

 . . . . .

[The employer] argues that [the plaintiff] cannot be similarly situated to male employees because she managed the Business Development Center while they worked in sales. But this misapprehends the nature of the similarly situated analysis. The question is not whether employees share identical job duties across the board in the abstract, but whether they are similarly situated in the specific context that forms the basis of the discrimination claim. . . . Here, [she] alleges discrimination in the payment of contractually-promised bonuses. The relevant comparison, therefore, is whether male employees who were contractually entitled to bonus payments received them while [she] did not. [The employer] offers no explanation for why the difference between management and sales positions matters for purposes of honoring contractual bonus obligations. In the absence of evidence demonstrating the relevance of this distinction to bonus payment practices, [the employer] has failed to meet its initial burden on summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether [she] was similarly situated to male employees who received their bonuses.

 . . . . [Her] compensation agreement, her complaint, her deposition testimony, and [the employer’s] answers to interrogatories collectively indicate that [she] and the men were entitled to bonus payments, that the men were paid, and that women (with one exception) were not paid.

In addition, the Court’s majority then ignored traditional burdens of proof in employment discrimination cases.  It faulted the employer for merely pointing out that the plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden of proving discrimination instead of producing its own independent evidence as the moving party.  Apparently, the employer had pointed out in its motion that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence, such as pay stubs, etc. and asserted that she had been an administrative assistant for months (thus, not entitled to any bonus).  Rather, Court’s majority contended that the employer “needed to point to evidence that, for example, the men were not entitled to payment or were not paid.”

The dissent pointed out that the employer in a discrimination case is not required to prove the absence of discrimination until the plaintiff produces enough evidence to show that she was treated differently.    However, the Court’s majority concluded: “This failure to discharge its initial burden is fatal to [the employer’s] motion for summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim.  It remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court based simply on the Court’s mysterious and inexplicable alteration of the burdens of proof in discrimination cases:

{¶ 45} It is crucial to emphasize that at this stage of the proceedings, the ultimate burden of persuasion has not yet shifted to [the plaintiff]. While she retains the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that [the employer] intentionally discriminated against her,  that burden is not yet operative in the context of summary judgment.

The dissent identified a lot of problems with the majority decision.  First, the plaintiff’s complaint and the summary judgment briefs barely mention, let alone discuss, wage discrimination.  Rather, the motion focused on her allegation that she had been terminated (which the employer denied) and contended that she had resigned after refusing a transfer.  The plaintiff’s response to the motion likewise focused on the termination allegation, but also identified evidence that certain men were paid the bonuses that they earned and that the employer engaged in a lot of allegedly sexist conduct.  Nonetheless, the trial court addressed wage discrimination in his decision, concluded that she had suffered an adverse employment action, but could not show that she was treated differently by being paid less for the same work since her work was not the same.   He also noted that she had admitted in her deposition that she had never reviewed actual payroll records to support her allegations.  

In other words, [her] sex discrimination claim is not an equal pay claim—sometimes called a wage discrimination or pay discrimination claim—but is instead a sex discrimination claim that, as a factual matter, relates to [the employer’s] alleged failure to pay certain compensation (bonuses) that [she] alleges were owed to her.  [She] only alleges that [her employer] has discriminated against her in failing to pay bonuses, not in the terms of her bonus plan. There is therefore no need to examine equal pay statutes . . .

Second, the dissent took exception to the majority’s evaluation of who is similarly situated:

Speaking generally, the simple fact that some employees are entitled to a bonus and a plaintiff is not paid a bonus, by itself, does not establish that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiff. Is it the same bonus? For doing the same work? Who decides who gets paid the bonus? Do the employees have the same bonus plan? Did the plaintiff and the other employees differ in their compliance with the terms of the bonus plan? At least some commonality must be established—the same or a similar job, the same pay plan, the same supervisor, etc.

The dissent then pointed out that the plaintiff had a very different job from the men to whom she was comparing herself.   She did not and could not produce any evidence that the men’s bonus plan was similar to her bonus agreement.

Finally, the dissent pointed out that for decades the plaintiff has been required in opposing a summary judgment to produce or identify evidence to support her burden of proof, but in this case, the majority was faulting the employer for not producing evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s burden. 

Next, the majority states that "[the employer] needed to point to evidence that, for example, the men were not entitled to payment or were not paid." In making this statement, the majority seems to imply that a court faced with a summary judgment motion must assume that employees identified as similarly situated by a plaintiff are in fact similarly situated, and that the burden is on the employer (the moving party) to disprove that the employees are similarly situated. I am aware of no case law supporting the majority's view of what McDonnell Douglas requires.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

FMLA Retaliation Claim Survives Dismissal Even if Employee Was Not FMLA Eligible at Time of FMLA Request

On Monday, the Lake County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s judgment on a FMLA claim brought by a former employee who had been fired the day before she was to marry her seriously ill finance after she requested once again to leave work early.   Mahoney-Offi v. Great Expressions Dental Ctrs., 2024-Ohio-5160.   The court concluded that her complaint could state a valid claim for FMLA retaliation because she was not required to be eligible for FMLA at the time of the leave request.  If she “is ultimately able to prove that her termination was not the result of her request to leave early on December 9 but in retaliation for her prior inquiry about FMLA leave, then she has stated a viable claim for retaliation under the FMLA.”

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been requesting to take time off to care for her seriously ill boyfriend.  She had requested and been denied FMLA on the grounds that they were not married.  However, it was suggested to her by management that she would be eligible for FMLA if she married him.  Shortly thereafter, they became engaged and were scheduled to be married on December 10.  On December 9, she requested to leave work early.  Initially, it was to prepare for her wedding, but later she said it was because he had become sicker and she needed to care for him.  Knowing that she planned to marry the next day, the employer then fired her on December 9.  She filed suit under the FMLA, which was initially dismissed on the grounds that she was not eligible for leave on December 9 and had already been denied leave.

The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that a plaintiff may pursue a FMLA retaliation claim if she was terminated for merely requesting leave (which is a protected activity) even if she was not eligible for leave at the time of the FMLA request.   However, a jury could still rule in favor of the employer if it found that she was fired for requesting to leave early on December 9, instead of the leave which the employer knew she intended to take after she was married on December 10. 

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Questions Whether Agreement to Simple Release of All Claims Was Voluntary When Union Gave Plaintiff Poor Advice and It Failed to Identify "Discrimination" Claims.

Yesterday, a divided Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on racial discrimination and retaliation claims.  Moore v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., No. 23-3775 (6^th Cir. 8/22/24).  The majority agreed that the plaintiff produced enough evidence to demonstrate a factual dispute about whether he was treated differently than white co-workers when he was terminated for testing six times higher than the prohibited threshold while two white co-workers were treated more leniently under comparable circumstances.  The Court refused to enforce the release of claims he signed in a last chance agreement given for insubordination despite his college education and failure to request more time to consider it when the entire meeting lasted about 10 minutes, the union vice-president encouraged him to sign it and the release of “all” claims against the employer arising out of employment did not specifically mention discrimination claims.   The Court remanded for the trial court’s consideration whether placing him on a second chance agreement and requiring random drug testing after he tested positive for marijuana below the employer’s prohibited threshold was discriminatory. The Court also found that the employer waived its affirmative defense to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to raise with the district court the plaintiff’s failure to file a Charge of Discrimination about the second chance agreement or mention it in a later charge about his suspension and last chance agreement. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had received college degrees in fashion design and hospital administration, but joined the defendant employer in 2015 as a warehouse employee after realizing his hospital career was not going further.   He began filing discrimination complaints with HR starting in August 2016, complaining about unpaid suspensions, etc.  Following an April 2017 accident where he significantly damaged an autonomous vehicle with a forklift he was driving, he was drug tested, but tested below the prohibited threshold in the employer’s policy, which provides for suspensions without pay, random testing for 24 months and immediate termination with another positive test within 60 months under a second chance agreement (SCA).   Although he objected to being placed on a SCA when he tested below the threshold, his supervisor -- who never saw the drug test results --  told him that he would be fired if he refused.  He did not ask for additional time to consider the agreement.

In June 2017, the plaintiff and other employees objected in salty language to a new operations directive.   He was then informed that he was being terminated for insubordination, but the union negotiated a last chance agreement for him the following month.  He met with the union vice president and his supervisor for ten minutes and was told that he would not be reinstated without signing the agreement, which contained a release of all claims against the company and the union.  Again, he did not request more time to review and consider the agreement.  He filed a Charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission challenging the termination (when other white employees also used salty language without being terminated), the LCA and his failure to receive backpay from his suspension, but did not mention the SCA.    A year later, he tested positive for marijuana at 6 times the prohibited level and was terminated in July 2018.   While he does not dispute that he tested positive, he challenged being placed on random drug testing under the SCA in the first place.  In May 2019, he filed an EEOC Charge alleging that he was treated differently than white co-workers. 

 

The district court found that the plaintiff had waived his challenge to the SCA and his suspension by signing the release in the LCA.  It also found that he could not show that the employer’s explanation for his termination -- his positive drug test -- was pretextual.   A divided Sixth Circuit reversed.

In the lengthiest part of the decision, the Court focused on the questions raised about whether the release of claims contained in the LCA were voluntary, and thus, enforceable under Title VII.   The majority discounted his college education for lacking legal training and his failure to request any time to consider the LCA because the union officer had told him to sign it if he wanted to be reinstated (and possibly poor legal advice) and the entire meeting lasted only 10 minutes.  It also discounted the fact that he had union representation and was never given an explicit deadline by the employer when he had to sign it.    In considering whether a release is valid and enforceable, courts will consider the following factors:

“(1) [the] plaintiff’s experience, background, and education; (2) the amount of time the plaintiff had to consider whether to sign the waiver, including whether the employee had an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; (3) the clarity of the waiver; (4) consideration for the waiver; as well as (5) the totality of the circumstances.” Id. While weighing these factors, we also “must ‘remain[] alert to ensure that employers do not defeat the policies of . . . Title VII by taking advantage of their superior bargaining position.’”

Interestingly, the majority found that the union’s encouragement to sign the agreement should be held against the employer even though the union was more accurately aligned with the employee.  One has to wonder if merely a friend had similarly given him poor advice would similarly affect the court’s analysis.  In short, it found that a jury should be able to later decide whether his signature should be considered voluntary:

It is unclear from the record whether [the plaintiff] was required to sign the LCA the same day that he was presented with it, or if he was able to request additional time to consider the contract’s terms. Similarly, the record indicates that [he] did not have an attorney present but does not provide any information as to whether [he] would have been permitted to request one prior to his signing the LCA. Most telling is that Arrington, the union representative in the room with [him] when he signed the LCA, told [him] to just sign the LCA and that it was “better to fight with a job than fight without a job.”  . . .  Reasonable jurors could find that Arrington’s statements indicated that [his] discrimination claims would survive his signing the LCA and that they influenced [his] signing the agreement.

Although Moore holds associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, his education does not provide him with any type of legal, managerial, or contractual background that would be relevant to interpreting the LCA’s terms in a manner essentially at odds with what the union representative told Moore. . . .

The Court also questioned whether the simple language releasing all claims against the employer and union relating to his employment arising prior to that date was sufficiently clear when the simple sentence did not explicitly mention discrimination or statutory claims.

In other cases where we have found that such provisions are straightforward in their terms, the contracts have explicitly stated that the employee was waiving the right to bring a discrimination suit,  . . . or that an individual must “arbitrate any legal dispute relating to their employment . . . , including all state and federal statutory claims,”  . . . . The LCA that [the plaintiff] signed is not precise in explaining what was meant by “any and all liability of any kind whatsoever relating to his employment with” CCBC, and [he] lacks a background that would help him to interpret this term.  Most important in [his] case is [the union officer’s] statement in the context of signing the LCA that it was “better to fight with a job than fight without a job.”

 . . . . As discussed above, particularly important in this case are the facts that (1) the union representative effectively suggested that [the plaintiff] would be able to seek legal recourse notwithstanding [his] signing of the agreement; (2) the agreement was not clear with respect to what rights [he] was waiving; and (3) [the employer] was in a better bargaining position. In other words, consistent with our caselaw, [his] education and experience are not “dispositive,” but rather are considered in the full context of the other waiver factors.  . . . Indeed, the union representative’s comments alone suggest that the waiver was not likely knowing and voluntary: it is natural for an employee to trust that their representative’s representations concerning that employee’s rights are fair and accurate.

The Court also rejected the employer’s accurate argument that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he never filed a Charge of Discrimination challenging the SCA because the employer never raised this argument in its summary judgment motion before the trial court.  The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense.

In addition, the Court found that the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether the justification for terminating him -- the admitted positive drug test -- was pretextual because it was insufficient to motivate his discharge when other employees were not terminated under similar circumstances.  He alleged that he was targeted for drug testing six times -- more than any other employee -- even though two of his co-workers “were permitted to come to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs and were not likewise penalized.”   He alleged that one co-worker “was likewise on an SCA, but was not tested during this time, nor was [that employee] fired after he had a positive drug test while on a SCA” following an accident.  Instead, the white co-worker wasn’t fired for more than a year after he failed a third drug test.

A two-strikes policy for firing Black employees and a three-strikes policy for firing white employees would plainly constitute disparate treatment and raise pretext concerns. At this stage, all that we look for is similarly situated comparators who “were not fired” despite engaging in “substantially identical conduct to that which the employer contends motivated its discharge of the plaintiff.”

Because the trial court did not consider pre-LCA events, the Court remanded for further consideration the plaintiff’s argument that that he was placed on random drug testing under the SCA even though it was not factual that he failed the first drug test. 

Finally, the Court had no difficulty in finding adequate evidence for the jury to consider about the retaliation claim.  The plaintiff had filed many internal discrimination grievances with HR, which were known to his manager.  He submitted one complaint a mere week before the final random drug test that resulted in his termination. “Given the temporal proximity between Moore filing his EEO grievances and the adverse employment action taken against him, Moore has shown “sufficient temporal proximity to establish a causal connection.”

 

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Supreme Court Reinstates SOX Jury Verdict With Lower Burden of Proving Employer's Motive Against Whistleblower

 This morning, the Supreme Court unanimously found that proof of retaliatory intent is not necessary to prevail on a claim for wrongful discharge brought under §1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the employee must prove that the protected activity was merely a contributing factor to his or her employment termination.  Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 (U.S. 2-8-24).  “Under the whistleblower-protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, no covered employer [publicly-traded companies] may ‘discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of’ protected whistleblowing activity. 18 U. S. C. §1514A(a).”  The protected activity includes reports by employees “what they reasonably believe to be instances of criminal fraud or securities law violations.”     “When a whistleblower invokes this provision, he bears the initial burden of showing that his protected activity ‘was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.’ 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(iii). The burden then shifts to the employer to show that it ‘would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ‘ the protected activity. §42121(b)(2)(B)(iv).”  The statutory language prohibiting discrimination against the employee does not require proof of retaliatory intent. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was employed as a research strategist who was required by SEC regulations to certify to his employer’s current and prospective customers that his reports were prepared independently and reflected his own views.  He alleged that he was fired after internally reporting in December 2011 and January 2012 that the leaders of two trading desks were improperly pressuring him to skew his reports to support their business strategies and to “clear” his articles with them before publication.  He found their conduct to be both unethical and illegal.  His supervisor, while sympathetic, urged him to not alienate those two individuals and was not helpful when the plaintiff reported that he was improperly being left out/excluded from meetings.   Despite having just given the plaintiff a strong performance evaluation, the manager then recommended him for layoff or to be transferred to a trading desk analyst position where he would not have SEC-certification responsibilities.  When the trading desk rejected him, he was fired in March 2012.  At trial, the employer argued that “market-wide difficulties and a $2-billion loss on a [its] trading desk in London had required the elimination of certain positions,” including his.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury that he was “not required to prove that his protected activity was the primary motivating factor in his termination, or that . . . UBS’s articulated reason for his termination was a pretext.”  When the jury sought clarification, the judge instructed that they ““should consider” whether “anyone with th[e] knowledge of [the plaintiff’s] protected activity, because of the protected activity, affect[ed] in any way the decision to terminate [his] employment.”  Recommending a $1M verdict, the “jury found that [the plaintiff] had established his §1514A claim and that [the employer] had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have fired [him] even if he had not engaged in protected activity.”  The court added $1.7M in attorneys fees and costs to the jury’s recommendation.   On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was required to show that the employer possessed a retaliatory intent.  Today, the Supreme Court reversed.

Unlike most federal employment statutes, SOX adopts the “burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code”—a provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).” Under that statute, “the whistleblower bears the burden to prove that his protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.” 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(i). If the whistleblower makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer to show “by clear and convincing evidence” that it “would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ” the protected activity. §42121(b)(2)(B)(ii).”  This framework

originated in the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), 5 U. S. C. §1221(e), which provides legal protection for whistleblowers within the civil service. The framework was meant to relieve whistleblowing employees of the “excessively heavy burden” under then-existing law of showing that their protected activity was a “‘significant’, ‘motivating’, ‘substantial’, or ‘predominant’” factor in the adverse personnel action, and it reflected a determination that “[w]histleblowing should never be a factor that contributes in any way to an adverse personnel action.” Congress then incorporated the easier-to-satisfy “contributing factor” framework into a series of similar whistleblower statutes that protect non[1]civil-service employees in industries where whistleblowing plays an especially important role in protecting the public welfare—including, as noted above, the airline industry (AIR 21) and the securities industry (Sarbanes-Oxley).

The Court then explained that

Section 1514A’s text does not reference or include a “retaliatory intent” requirement, and the provision’s mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with such a requirement. While a whistleblower bringing a §1514A claim must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action, he need not also prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

                . . . .

An animus-like “retaliatory intent” requirement is simply absent from the definition of the word “discriminate.” When an employer treats someone worse—whether by firing them, demoting them, or imposing some other un[1]favorable change in the terms and conditions of employment—“because of ” the employee’s protected whistleblowing activity, the employer violates §1514A. It does not matter whether the employer was motivated by retaliatory animus or was motivated, for example, by the belief that the employee might be happier in a position that did not have SEC reporting requirements.

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that innocent employers will be held liable for adverse employment actions which were not motivated by retaliation or the protected conduct, such as when the employee’s protected conduct results in the biggest client to leave and the employee without any work to do:

The statute’s burden-shifting framework provides that an employer will not be held liable where it “demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that [it] would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ” the protected behavior. 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(ii). The right way to think about that kind of same-action causation analysis is to “change one thing at a time and see if the out[1]come changes.” Bostock, 590 U. S., at 656. The question is whether the employer would have “retain[ed] an otherwise identical employee” who had not engaged in the protected activity. Id., at 660. As the Federal Circuit has explained in the WPA context, the same-action analysis “does not require . . . that the adverse personnel action be based on facts ‘completely separate and distinct from protected whistleblowing disclosures.’”  . . . In that case, the correct inquiry was whether the employer would have taken the same action if it had learned of the contents of the employee’s protected disclosure through other means.  . . .. In UBS’s hypothetical, the relevant inquiry would be whether the employer still would have fired the employee if the client had left for some other reason. If so, it will have no trouble prevailing under the statute.

To be sure, the contributing-factor framework that Congress chose here is not as protective of employers as a motivating-factor framework. That is by design. Congress has employed the contributing-factor framework in contexts where the health, safety, or well-being of the public may well depend on whistleblowers feeling empowered to come forward. This Court cannot override that policy choice by giving employers more protection than the statute itself provides.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.