Last month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer despite claims that the receptionist had been fired, at least in part, for expressing her political beliefs about law enforcement officers. Hightower-Mathis v. NextCare Michigan Providers, PLLC, No. 25-1623 (6th Cir. Jan 16, 2026). The plaintiff receptionist made comments to police officers seeking treatment at the clinic, which made them uncomfortable providing personal information to the clinic. She was fired after they complained and an investigation. She admitted that she was fired for the disputed comments and not because of her race or gender, dooming her Title VII claims.
According to the Court’s opinion, the terminated medical
clinic receptionist alleged that she had been fired on account of her race and
gender after she had been fired for making unprofessional comments to a police
officer who was there seeking medical treatment. She admitted to making small talk with the
officer when he checked in, including asking whether he had ever killed anyone
(which was confirmed by her co-worker).
The officer then texted his supervisor about her rude comments to him about
his uniform and asking if he was going to kill anyone tonight. His sergeant then immediately came to the
clinic and she allegedly asked him if he was going to beat up anyone tonight
(which she denied). He asked to speak
with her supervisor, the clinic manager, who he immediately called to report
her comments. She, in turn, emailed her
supervisor about the “grumpy old man” who was complaining about her because she
had been joking with his police officer and asked to leave early to move her
car with unregistered tags so that he did not give her a ticket. She and her co-worker were asked by the
Clinic Manager for statements about the incident. The Police Chief called the next day to
demand her termination or he would cancel the department’s contract with the
clinic. She was then fired for
unprofessional conduct.
The courts found that she could not even prove a prima facie
case of discrimination. Not only could
she not identify any replacement, she could not identify anyone who had engaged
in similar conduct and not been fired.
She never complained about harassment and admitted in her deposition
that she was fired because of her alleged comments to the police officers,
which was investigated by her employer, and not because of her race or gender. The courts did not address whether she was
able to prove pretext because she did not produce sufficient evidence to carry
her prima facie burden of proof.
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.
