Sixth Circuit Rejects Employer's Honest Belief Defense Where It Did Not Investigate Until After Termination

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit unanimously reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an Ohio disability discrimination claim and rejected its honest belief defense on the grounds that it did not make a reasonably informed and considered decision.  Fisher v. Airgas USA LLC, No. 23-3286 (6^th Cir. 1/31/24).  The plaintiff had been taking legal hemp to help with pain and nausea from his cancer treatment.  However, although he told his employer that this might have caused a false positive test for marijuana (and there was evidence that he tested positive for THCA and not TCH), it did not investigate or discuss this with the testing laboratory until after it fired him.  Because it did not investigate the matter or tell the lab about his hemp use until after his termination, it did not make a reasonably informed and considered decision, which is necessary to rely on the honest belief doctrine.   Moreover, because it did not even discuss the issue with the lab until after his termination, they could not rely on that conversation to support their honest belief defense.  It only matters what they knew before he was fired.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was diagnosed with liver cancer a month after he was hired.  After working successfully for about a year, he was granted a medical leave for surgery and treatment.  Upon returning to work, he experienced pain and extreme nausea and began taking small amounts of hemp, without informing his employer, whose policy did not ban its use.  He was then randomly selected for a drug test, which indicated that he tested positive for marijuana.   He requested a repeat test, explaining for the first time that his hemp may have caused a false positive.  The employer obtained a re-test of the same sample, but did not tell the lab about his use of hemp.  The employer also did not ask the lab if hemp would cause a false positive.  In the meantime, the plaintiff contacted the lab’s MRO, who said he had tested positive for THCA, not THC.  The employer fired him anyway.  It later contended that when it contacted the lab’s CMO (after the plaintiff’s discharge) that it was told that he tested positive for THC.  However, the CMO’s affidavit says otherwise -- that he only tested positive for THC.  Nonetheless, the employer refused to reinstate him.

The plaintiff filed suit for disability discrimination.  The trial court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion based on the honest belief rule, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

[The plaintiff] expressly raised with [the employer]—specifically for purposes of his retest— the question whether his hemp usage had caused his sample to test positive for marijuana. Yet [the employer] did nothing to investigate that possibility—even though doing so would have been as easy as sending an email to [the lab] flagging that possibility. [The employer] therefore has not established— as a matter of law, as necessary for summary judgment—that it made a “reasonably informed and considered decision.”

In addition, for purposes of the honest belief rule, the employer could not rely on alleged conversations with the lab -- disputing that hemp could have caused a positive THC test -- because those conversations were not held until after the plaintiff’s employment had been terminated.

[The employer] counters that [the lab’s] Chief Medical Officer . .. . told [it] that hemp could not have caused [the plaintiff’s] positive tests. But that confirmation came after [it] fired [him], not before. And the only facts that matter for purposes of the honest-belief rule are those that were before the employer “at the time” it fired its employee.

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 Reinstates FMLA Claims Where Employee Called Off for Vague "Flare-ups" and Manager Knew of FMLA Requests.

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on FMLA retaliation and interference claims.  Render v. FCA US LLC, No. 21-2851 (6^th Cir. 11-16-22).   The plaintiff had been tentatively approved for intermittent FMLA leave for his depression and anxiety.  However, when he called off on multiple days, he only once referred to the FMLA (when asked) and usually just said he was unwell or was having a “flare-up” (the term his physician used to describe his need for FMLA).  The Court found that this otherwise vague reference to his FMLA Medical Certification was sufficient to put the employer on notice of the need to inquire further and that he did not need to specially refer to the FMLA or to his anxiety or depression.  The Court also found sufficient evidence of retaliation in light of the temporal proximity of his protected activity of requesting FMLA leave and the termination decision. “It is the request that is protected activity,” not whether the leave is qualified or not.  The Court rejected the employer’s honest believe defense because the decisionmaker was aware that he had requested FMLA leave, was seeking to use it on the days in question, and had disputed the mis-coding of his absences as non-FMLA (i.e., that she had been provided with mistaken information which she had the authority and power to correct herself).   Finally, the Court agreed that the employee had sufficiently complied with the employer’s customary call off procedures when the information he had been provided was confusing and contradictory.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been terminated for poor attendance, but was reinstated following a grievance and subject to a conditional reinstatement letter that he would be fired again if he had more than two attendance infractions in the next year’s probationary period.  Within six months, he missed or was tardy at least four times and was fired.  Thing is, he applied for and was conditionally approved for four days per month of intermittent FMLA leave for his depression and anxiety.  The FMLA administrator sent him inconsistent and contradictory information about how he was to report his FMLA absences and the recordkeeping of the employer and FMLA Administrator was also inconsistent and contradictory.   Although he was given confirmation numbers when he called, he generally failed to indicate that he was using or had been approved for FMLA leave and would only refer vaguely to “flare-ups” and not being well enough to work.  The decisionmaking HR manager checked with other HR and the FMLA Administrators, but was given incorrect and/or misinterpreted the information.   Because she could not confirm that he had called in as required on all of the dates and the FMLA administrator had failed to record them as FMLA absences, the HR manager decided to terminate him even though he told her that he had attempted to use his approved FMLA leave. 

The Court’s majority found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the employer may have interfered with his right to take FMLA leave.  While employees who have been approved for FMLA leave are required when calling off work to refer to the FMLA or to their FMLA approved condition and say more than that they are “sick,” the Court found that the employer is bound by the employee’s prior notice requesting FMLA leave and the supporting medical statement describing his medical condition.   

Either way, an employee “[c]alling in ‘sick’ without providing more information will not be considered sufficient notice to trigger an employer’s obligations under the Act,” though an “employer will be expected to obtain any additional required information through informal means.”

 In this case, the plaintiff had requested and been approved for intermittent FMLA leave for “flare-ups” of his chronic depression and anxiety.  So, when he called off due to “flare ups,” the employer was on notice to inquire further if it questioned whether this was covered by the FMLA:

With less context, some of [the plaintiff’s] four call-ins could be viewed as providing insufficient notice. Although [he] referenced the FMLA during his December 7, 2017 call-in, he did not do so during his call-ins on December 6, 2017 and January 5, 2018, opting instead to say that he was suffering from “flare ups.” . . . .  As the district court noted, a “flare up” just means “a sudden appearance or worsening of the symptoms of a disease or condition.” . . . .The term does not by itself indicate what these symptoms or the underlying disease or condition are. Standing alone, an employee reporting that they were having a “flare up” could be the equivalent of calling in “sick,” which 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b) explicitly provides “will not be considered sufficient notice to trigger an employer’s obligations under the Act.” The same is true of [his] call from December 8, 2017, during which he merely reported having been “sick the last few days,” referencing his calls from December 6 and 7.

But there is more to this story. Nothing in 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b) commands that we overlook pertinent background. . . . Given that employers are under a duty to inquire further about the nature of the leave requested, a previously submitted medical certification listing symptoms is relevant to evaluating what can be reasonably gleaned from an employee’s call-in. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.301(a), 825.303(b).

Before making any of his calls, [he] provided [the employer] with such a certificate.  . . . This document informed the company that [he] would be unable to work when the symptoms of his depression and anxiety were acute. . . . . More importantly, the certificate alerted [the employer] that [he] would be unable to work when these symptoms “flare[d] up.” Id. It also noted that these flare ups could occur three-to-four times a month. Id. Therefore, when [he] called in on three consecutive days in December 2017 specifically referencing either his symptoms flaring up, or the FMLA, or, by the last day, his previous two days out and his subsequent need to be late to work, it would be reasonable to conclude that he put [the employer] on notice that he was referring to his FMLA-qualifying condition. . . . . The same is true for the January 5, 2018 call, during which [he] also identified a flare up of his symptoms as the reason for his tardiness. . . . .. At the very least, [the employer] knew that [he] had been requesting FMLA leave during the December call-ins by the day of the last leave request because he reinformed the company that he had been doing so.  . . . . On this record, we hold that a reasonable jury could conclude that [he] provided adequate notice of his need for unforeseeable FMLA leave each time that he called in.

The minority opinion also concluded that he had complied with the employer’s customary call-off policies and the majority opinion agreed: “For the reasons stated in the lead opinion, a reasonable jury could find that [the plaintiff] provided sufficient notice of his intent to take FMLA leave under [the employer’s] internal leave policies.”

In general, employers can establish call-in procedures, and they may deny FMLA leave if an employee fails to follow those instructions. . . . Accordingly, [the employer] could adopt a policy requiring employees to call both Sedgwick and the [the employer’s] call-in line to report an FMLA absence. But an employee cannot be faulted for failing to comply with company policy if the policy was unclear or the employee lacked notice of the policy.

In this case, Sedgwick’s letter was so confusing that even Mitchell, who worked in FCA’s human resources department, could not decipher what it was asking employees to do. . . .

Understandably, [the plaintiff] did not follow these confusing instructions to a tee. He believed that he simply had to call the 1-800 number and report his absence. He “didn’t realize there was a second number.” . . . .We cannot fault him for failing to call both [the employer] and Sedgwick when (1) the list of instructions only gave one phone number (the one he called), and (2) the letter did not clearly list a phone number for Sedgwick. Moreover, Render took other steps to ensure that he properly reported his FMLA days. In the days immediately following his absences, he told two different supervisors that his absences were FMLA days, and he followed up with [the HR Manager] to ensure that his absences were properly coded.

As for his retaliation claim, the Court had no trouble finding that the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity in requesting FMLA leave and that the employer knew about his requests before terminating him.  It was irrelevant whether the absences were in fact protected by the FMLA for purposes of deciding whether he had engaged in protected activities. 

Employers are charged with knowing about FMLA protected activity as soon as an employee requests leave, even if it turns out the employee was not entitled to benefits. It is the request that is protected activity. . . . . Even if [the employer] did not know that [the plaintiff] was using his intermittent FMLA leave at the time of his absences, the issue is whether it knew about his protected activity before it terminated him. In this case, even if [the manager] was unaware that [the plaintiff] asked to use his leave on December 6, she admitted that she knew he was claiming FMLA protection by December 8, over a month before she terminated him.

The Court’s majority also found that the plaintiff could satisfy his burden of showing that his protected activity motivated his termination because of the temporal proximity between his initial FMLA request in October, his first attempt to use it in December and his termination in January.  While the employer may rely on the violation of his probation terms as its legitimate and non-discriminatory reason, the prima facia causation element was satisfied by the temporal proximity of the events. 

The Court also found that the plaintiff could show pretext on the ground that the employer’s explanation had no basis in fact because his absences had been miscoded by the FMLA administrator as miscellaneous instead of as intermittent FMLA as he had been conditionally approved.  When the plaintiff discovered the mistake, he was told that he would have to request HR to re-code his absences as protected by the FMLA.  However, when he went to the HR manager about the problem, she admitted that she could re-code his absences, but terminated him instead.   

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that it could rely on the honest belief rule based on incorrect information given to it by the FMLA administrator and other HR employees because the HR Manager was aware that the plaintiff had been conditionally approved for FMLA leave, that he had attempted to use that FMLA leave on all but one of the absences in question and that she had the authority to re-code the absences as covered by the FMLA leave.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], [the HR Manager] failed to catch the many errors that were made in the process of marking [his] absences as “MISU.” Even though she had the power to fix those errors, [she] did not recode [his] absences. Instead, she terminated him. A jury could find that [her] errors were the only thing giving her a reason to terminate [him], given that his absences would have otherwise been excused. Indeed, the record shows that [she] terminated [him] even though she knew that he was trying to use his FMLA days and that he was already conditionally approved for intermittent FMLA leave. Still, she refused to recode the absences as FMLA. A jury could thus find that the proffered reason had no basis in fact.

. . . .At this point, [he] has provided ample evidence indicating that [the employer] wrongfully designated his absences as unexcused when they should have been coded as FMLA. And [she] admitted that she terminated [him] even knowing that he qualified for FMLA leave and that he was trying to use his approved leave to cover his absences and tardies in December and January. [He] thus raised sufficient facts showing that FCA’s nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual.

In short, the honest belief rule will not protect a manager from her own error when she was on notice that she may have been given incorrect information during her investigation. 

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.

Ohio Court Rejects Age Discrimination When Plaintiff Was Not Replaced, Could Not Identify Similarly-Situated Comparator and Employer Had Honest Belief.

Last month, the Lucas County Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an age discrimination claim because the plaintiff employee could not show that he had been replaced, was treated less favorably or that his termination was pretextual when the employer had an honest belief supporting the reason for his termination.  Hardy v. The Anderson's, Inc., 2022-Ohio-3357.   The Court agreed that the plaintiff could show that he was minimally qualified for his position based on his prior experience and promotion even though he had a recent negative evaluation.  However, the plaintiff could not show that he had been replaced when existing employees assumed his prior job duties in addition to their existing responsibilities.  He also could not show that he was treated less favorably than a substantially younger employee when that employee was not similarly situated because he only lived a few hours/miles outside his sale district and had fully informed the manager of his living arrangements and had not tried to hide them, unlike the plaintiff who moved thousands of miles from Michigan to the Caribbean to be with his second wife.   Finally, there was no dispute that the plaintiff had not been candid about his living arrangements with his manager and that the manager blamed his relocation for his poor job performance.  Whether he lied or was merely evasive, whether or not it was necessary to spend a certain amount of time in the sales district meeting with customers, and whether or not he was required to have reported this time as vacation instead of collecting his regular salary, the Court had no trouble finding that no one else had engaged in similar behavior and it justified his termination.  The  Court also rejected the argument that the manager’s prior comment referring to him as a dinosaur could constitute direct evidence of or pretext for discrimination.

According to the Court’s opinion, to save his second marriage, the plaintiff had relocated to his wife’s home country in the Caribbean for extended periods of time without telling his new manager. While the plaintiff’s initial performance evaluation in his new management position had been favorable (while he had been living full-time in his sales district), his second evaluation had been negative even before his new manager found out that he had been spending most weeks in the Caribbean.   The plaintiff admitted that he had not submitted certain weekly report or learned a new computer system.  The plaintiff alleged that his new manager once referred to him as a dinosaur.  When his job performance suffered, the manager found out about his relocation, confronted him and immediately terminated him.    Following the termination, the manager assumed his duties for a few months before restructuring the position and hiring a new employee to perform parts of the duties in one region.    

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 Rejects Plaintiff's Discrimination Claims Because Honest Belief Rule, Employee Handbook Rules and Vague Allegations Prevented Showing of Pretext

Yesterday, as I was participating in a webinar on the Honest Belief Rule, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment in part because of – you guessed it – the Honest Belief Rule.  Okakpu-Mbah v. Postmaster, No. 21-2811 (6^th Cir. 2022).  The plaintiff had been fired at the conclusion of her 90-day probationary period for not working fast enough in sorting the mail.   The Court agreed that she could not show that the employer’s explanation was pretextual in light of documents showing that her efficiency had previously been rated as unacceptable, that she did not improve and, according to all of the other supervisors, was still working too slow by the time of her 80-day evaluation.  The Court also refused to find pretext from the use of a subjective standard for efficiency because there was no evidence that the employer had manipulated or abused the standard to single her out. It also refused to compare her to co-workers whose performance deficiencies were different and improved over time.  

According to the Court’s opinion, mail sorters receive 30, 60 and 80 day evaluations during their 90-day probationary period.  The Employee Handbook states that they will be separated during orientation as soon as it becomes evident that they are unable to meet the requirements of the position.  The plaintiff received a satisfactory 30-day probationary evaluation, except that her productivity was rated unacceptable. She denied receiving a 60-day evaluation (which was disputed).  However, as her 80-day evaluation approached, her supervisor reached out to other supervisors for their opinion.  One emailed that the plaintiff was very slow, did not grasp the concept, demonstrated no sense of urgency and sometimes had to be reassigned to a different task.  The local postmaster recommended that she be terminated.  She was terminated following her 80-day evaluation for inefficiency and brought suit alleging age, race and national origin discrimination and retaliation.  The district court granted the employer summary judgment.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s explanation was pretextual because the rationale was insufficient to motivate the employer’s action.  She pointed to the fact that no other employee had ever been fired for working too slowly.  However, the Court summarily rejected her argument on the grounds that the Employee Handbook:

says that employees “should be separated as soon as it becomes evident that they are unable to meet the requirements of their positions.” Handbook § 584.35. Working inefficiently is sufficient to motivate the firing.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that her termination lacked a basis in fact based largely on the Honest Belief Rule.   The employer produced her 30-day evaluation showing that her productivity had been rated “unacceptable” and indicated that she never improved.  The employer also produced an email from one of her supervisors indicating that she worked very slowly and could not keep up with her co-workers.   Although the employer did not use objective metrics to measure productivity, the plaintiff’s own subjective view of her performance was insufficient to create a disputed issue of fact about whether the employer’s explanation was reasonably based on facts.   Her supervisor’s “belief about [the plaintiff’s] performance was reasonable. Not only was the belief based on [her] own observation, but also on the observations of other supervisors who all agreed she was working slowly.”  Because the supervisor’s conclusion was reasonable, the plaintiff “cannot show pretext by showing it was wrong.”

            [A]n employer’s use of subjective reasons in terminating an employee, without more, “does not raise an inference” of discrimination. . . . And [plaintiff] “has offered no evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that the [employer] manipulated, abused, or misapplied that criteria to affect” her chances of being retained at the end of the probationary period. . . . . So even when an employer uses an “evaluation process [that] was haphazard” that alone cannot create a “reasonable inference” of discrimination.  . . . . And an employer’s “unwise business judgments” or “faulty evaluation system” does not establish an inference of discrimination either.

The plaintiff’s efforts to show that her inefficiency did not actually motivate her terminations failed largely from lack of specificity.  She did not show how other events were “’logically or reasonably tied’ to the adverse action against her, that the same “bad actors” were involved, or that the conduct was in close temporal proximity, among other factors.”   Among other things, she incorrectly claimed that four employees had been fired and could not show that her supervisor was involved in the termination of the fifth.    Her attempt to show better treatment of white coworkers failed because their negative evaluations related to their attendance and not to their productivity.  Thus, “[s]uperficial similarities between a disciplined employee and his colleagues” are not enough to make them comparators.”  Further, some of her alleged comparators improved their performance while the plaintiff did not.  The third comparator had a valid excuse for her absences. 

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.

Vague Requests and Failure to Comply with Accommodation Procedures Doomed ADA Failure-To-Accommodate Claim

Last month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim when the employee failed to obtain medical information clarifying his sought accommodation as requested by the defendant employer. Stover v. Amazon.com LLC, No. 21-5421 (6th Cir. 1/10/22).   His initial inquiries were deemed too vague to constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation and his failure to support his own clarification with any medical documentation from his physician constituted an abandonment of the reasonable accommodation process.   Therefore, the employer was not required to grant his requests.  

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff call center employee requested a reduced work schedule to accommodate his gastrointestinal impairment and need for unscheduled restroom breaks.   After he failed to submit any medical documentation to support his first request, his request was administratively closed.   He later submitted a second request, supported with note from his physician indicating that he needed to have a restroom “readily available.”  When asked for clarification, the employee indicated that his work hours should be reduced from 40 to 32 and approval to use the restroom whenever he has an episode, but never provided any medical documentation to support this clarification.  Accordingly, his request was closed without approval.  Dissatisfied with the employer’s process, the plaintiff never sought another accommodation.

Meanwhile, his job performance was found to be deficient, which he usually blamed on his hardware, etc.   He was observed, among other things, being rude to customers and avoiding new calls near the end of his shifts.   Although his equipment was replaced, he continued to have performance issues. He was then warned about his excessive breaks, but he refused to pursue the reasonable accommodation process again even when encouraged to do so.   When his performance did not improve, he was terminated.

The Court found that the plaintiff could not show that he had requested a reasonable accommodation when he had abandoned the reasonable accommodation process.   His initial requests and physician notes – for “more breaks” and a “readily accessible” restroom – lacked

specificity, so much so that they were tantamount to failing to make any accommodation request whatsoever. An employee, after all, must “reasonably inform” an employer about the nature of the requested accommodation, thereby putting the employer on notice of whether and what type of accommodation might be appropriate.

When the plaintiff later requested a reduced work schedule and ability to use the restroom whenever he had an episode, he failed to provide the supporting medical documentation reasonably requested by the employer.

[He] did not follow up, however, with supporting medical documentation to give Amazon fair notice of his needs. Instead, he repeatedly disclaimed any interest in seeking an accommodation. [His] failures in this regard rendered his bathroom-accommodations claims subject to summary judgment.

In litigation, he claimed that he had made another request  -- for leave to seek medical treatment every 8 weeks.  However, there was no evidence that he had ever requested this accommodation.  Moreover, there was no evidence of any medical information submitted by any physician to support this request.

To avoid the weakness of his evidence, the plaintiff argued that he was not required to participate in the employer’s process when he deemed them to be futile:

employees poured cold water on his initial accommodation inquiries, justifying his decision to deem the process futile. But Stover cannot dictate the terms of his accommodation or refuse reasonable requests by those designated to evaluate his accommodation inquiries.

The Court also rejected his retaliation claim because he could not show that the reason for his termination – his manipulation of the computer system to avoid taking customer calls near the end of his shift.”  This is a basic reason to terminate employment.   The employer was able to articulate its belief in his misconduct.  “Under the settled “honest belief rule,” so long as Amazon made a “reasonably informed and considered decision” based on “particularized facts,” no reasonable juror could infer that its reason for firing Stover was pretextual.”  He essentially admitted the infractions, which were similar enough to his other misconduct – being rude to customers – to mirror his pattern of rude behavior.  His “bathroom needs, in other words, were the least of Amazon’s problems with him.”  Moreover, he had given a variety of reasons for taking excessive breaks – a malfunctioning computer and food poisoning, etc. – that undermined his claim that his disability motivated the termination decision.

True, [the plaintiff] did, on one occasion, tell [his manager] that his Crohn’s disease was the cause of his excessive breaks. But that was one cause among many, including food poisoning and a mischievous computer. There is no evidence to suggest that [his] Crohn’s disease motivated [her] to initiate [his] separation any more than any other reason [he] provided for his misconduct. More to the point, far from showcasing a discriminatory intent, [his manager], in her discussion with [him] about his excessive breaks, encouraged [him] to seek an ADA accommodation, hardly the makings of a discrimination claim. [The plaintiff], for the most part, viewed his dispute with [his manager] as personal in nature, not one motivated by some sort of hidden discriminatory intent. In short, no reasonable jury could conclude that Amazon’s proffered reasons for cutting ties with [him] were pretextual.

 

 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.

Title VII Protects HR Employees, Too

Last summer, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgments given to two employers on claims brought by human resources employees.   In Briggs v. UC, 11 F.4^th 498 (6^th Cir. 2021), the Court ruled that a jury should evaluate a compensation analyst’s claim of wage discrimination within a college human resources department based on race and gender.  In Jackson v. Genesee County Road Commission, 999 F.3d 333 (6^th Cir. 2021), the Court ruled in favor of a fired HR Director who had advocated on behalf of employees alleging unlawful discrimination and asserted that her termination had been in retaliation for her opposing unlawful discrimination and engaging in those protected activities.  More interestingly, the Court found that Title VII – governing employment discrimination --  protected her role as the EEO Officer in ensuring EEO compliance by the employer’s vendors: as EEO Officer, her “actions could reasonably be viewed as steps to ensure there was no discrimination in hiring both within GCRC and among its vendors, and, thus, were protected activity under Title VII.”

According to the Court's analysis of the plaintiff's allegations in Briggs, the HR department hired a new compensation analyst in 2015 who possessed a college degree but no compensation experience.  She was paid significantly more than the incumbent-plaintiff, who had significant compensation experience but no college degree.   Part of the reason for the disparity was a policy requiring a 5% raise for any promotion and part was to entice her to leave her current position.  Although the manager advocated for an equity adjustment for the plaintiff (who was paid both less than the new peer and also below market) in 2015, the new VP allegedly refused because of his “inconsistent” 2016 performance evaluation (which apparently did not explain objectively the basis for the lower evaluation).  It was implied that the plaintiff had performed only his basic expectations before understanding that advancement came with exceeding expectations.  Ultimately, the manager claimed that he suffered retaliation for advocating on behalf of the plaintiff’s equity adjustment.  The new employee exceeded expectations, was promoted again and ultimately left.  When the plaintiff applied for her former position, the VP apparently revised the job description in an alleged attempt to render him unqualified.  There was also an implication that the VP contended that the plaintiff was not even qualified for his own position.  The VP gave the plaintiff the lowest possible performance bonus.

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the compensation difference was based on a factor other than sex or race:

no authority supports the concept that an employee’s prior salary or demand for a specific salary is sufficient in isolation to justify a wage differential. Such a rule would simply perpetuate existing sex-based pay disparities and undercut the purpose of the Act—to require that those doing the same work receive the same pay. . . .

Though a defendant need not offer contemporaneously produced evidence of its rationale, there must be evidence in the record proving that the employer’s proffered justification was the reason for the wage differential’s existence. . .

                . .  .

The record does not show beyond dispute that Wittwer’s bachelor’s degree and higher performance ratings than Briggs, or any other specified factors, were the reason for the salary disparity between her and Briggs.   [The employer] has therefore failed to meet its burden of proving that these distinctions were “the reason for the pay disparity.”

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument regarding the new employee’s higher education and better attitude towards self-improvement and working outside the job description because of the lack of documentary evidence regarding the plaintiff’s purported performance issues until after he requested an equity adjustment and because of the lack of evidence that these issues actually motivated the pay disparity.  The Court explained that an employer is required to submit evidence “beyond dispute” from which “a factfinder could conclude that the proffered reasons “in fact” explain the wage disparity—not just that the reasons could explain it.” The Court also found sufficient evidence of pretext in that the employer’s explanation was not credible:

The record contains no contemporaneous evidence that the cited distinctions between Wittwer and Briggs actually motivated their salary disparity, and it contains disputes of fact among [the employer’s] own witnesses as to whether performance is, in practice, a consideration for employees’ base pay. The post-hoc nature of the justifications contained in Stidham’s affidavit further support an inference of pretext, particularly given that several of the statements contradict statements made by Stidham in Briggs’s performance reviews and cannot be squared with the undisputed fact that Stidham recognized Briggs’s pay was below market and requested an equity adjustment for him. “An employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext.”

The Court also rejected the employer’s honest belief defense on the retaliation claim because the VP could not show a factual basis for her mistaken belief about the incumbent’s qualifications and his experience before being hired by the college and the fact that she pulled the job posting soon after he made his discrimination complaint.   

a reasonable jury could conclude that [the VP’s] alteration of the posting was retaliatory rather than innocent. Contemporaneous e-mails and other evidence suggest that [her] decision-making about Briggs’s complaint and the job posting were linked. Briggs made his complaint on November 8. . . .

Then, on November 13, [she] e-mailed [the manager] directing him to pull the senior compensation analyst job posting. Although in retaliation cases “temporal proximity cannot be the sole basis for finding pretext,” it can be “a strong indicator of pretext when accompanied by some other, independent evidence.”

According to the Court's evaluation of the plaintiff's allegations in Jackson, the employer had fired its HR Director without any explanation or investigation following a number of complaints about her communication skills, including some from individuals who had been investigated and/or counselled by her.   The employer had previously supported all of the actions she had taken.  One of the complaints was from a vendor which incorrectly claimed that she had frozen its payments based on a discrimination complaint it had received from one of its own employees.   The employer’s outside counsel had also complained about her insistence that all communications go through her when he was attempting to meet with witnesses and prepare for hearings, etc.  The employer did not investigate any of the complaints or give her any explanation for why she was being terminated.  Without being able to identify that it had relied only on accurate complaints or on complaints that did not implicate her investigating and remedying unlawful discrimination, the Court found that a jury should determine whether she had been terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected activities.

The opposition clause of Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made . . . unlawful . . . by this [title.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The Supreme Court has held that the term “oppose” should be interpreted based on its ordinary meaning: “[t]o resist or antagonize . . . ; to contend against; to confront; resist; withstand.” . . .

This court and the Supreme Court have imposed limited restrictions on what activity constitutes opposition activity. While the plaintiff’s allegations of protected activity do not need to “be lodged with absolute formality, clarity, or precision,” the plaintiff must allege more than a “vague charge of discrimination.” . . . The plaintiff also must express her opposition in a reasonable manner. Johnson, 215 F.3d at 580. For example, “[a]n employee is not protected when he violates legitimate rules and orders of his employer, disrupts the employment environment, or interferes with the attainment of his employer’s goals.”. . .

. . .the district court held that the opposition clause is limited to conduct that goes beyond the plaintiff’s regular job duties. However, the district court’s assertion is contrary to both the text of the opposition clause and this court’s interpretation of Title VII for two reasons. First, the text of § 2000e-3(a) states that it “shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees,” which suggests that all employees are subject to the same standard. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (emphasis added). The statute also does not state that the employee’s conduct must fall outside of her regular job duties. . . .

                . . . this court has previously allowed plaintiffs to bring a retaliation claim for conduct related to their job responsibilities. . . . In Johnson, the vice president of human resources brought a Title VII claim . . . for allegedly firing him in part because of his advocacy on behalf of minorities related to his management of the university’s affirmative action program. . . . The Johnson court found that “the fact that Plaintiff may have had a contractual duty to voice [his concerns about the affirmative action program] is of no consequence to his claim.” . . . Excluding the vice president from the protection of Title VII would “run[] counter to the broad approach used when considering a claim for retaliation under this clause, as well the spirit and purpose behind Title VII as a broad remedial measure.” . . . The court worried that narrowing the scope of Title VII could create perverse incentives for employers and leave the employees specifically hired to do the often difficult work of combating discrimination with fewer protections than general employees. . . . In sum, both the text of Title VII and our precedent reject the district court’s additional restriction that the opposition clause does not extend to an employee’s regular job duties.

That being said, the Court did not find that all of the plaintiff’s investigations amounted to protected activity because she had not concluded that some of the alleged misconduct was the result of unlawful race discrimination.   Where she had concluded that unlawful race discrimination had occurred, her conduct in that investigation, informing management and negotiating a severance agreement for the offending manager constituted protected conduct.

Interestingly, the Court also found her role as EEO officer in working with vendors (not employees) was similarly protected conduct. “Jackson’s actions could reasonably be viewed as steps to ensure there was no discrimination in hiring both within GCRC and among its vendors, and, thus, were protected activity under Title VII.”

The Court also found sufficient evidence of causation from the temporal proximity of her protected activities (i.e., 2.5 months) and her termination.

The temporal proximity between Jackson’s protected activities and her termination is strong circumstantial evidence. In addition, many of the same people who complained to Daly about Jackson’s communication style were involved either in the negotiations with Bennett, such as Derderian, or communication about EEOPs, such as Plamondon, Peivandi, and two outside vendors. A reasonable juror could infer that these individuals described Jackson’s communication style as offensive and abrasive because they took issue with her handling of the investigation into Bennett’s or Jackson’s efforts to ensure EEOP compliance. Thus, Jackson has met the relatively light burden of demonstrating causation at the prima facie stage.

While there was some evidence supporting the employer’s explanation for her termination, she was also able to produce sufficient evidence of pretext to go to a jury.  Some employees, vendors and Board members contended that they had an excellent relationship with her.  “This evidence contradicts GCRC’s claim that Jackson’s communication style was inflexible and abrasive and could lead a juror to conclude Jackson’s communication style was not the true reason she was fired.”

Furthermore, several of the GCRC employees who complained about Jackson’s communication style also complained about Jackson’s protected activities, so a reasonable juror could conclude that their complaints about Jackson’s style were motivated to some degree by their opposition to her protected activities. . . . Although it is true that some of the employees who complained about Jackson’s communication style were not directly involved in her protected activities, there is enough overlap between the employees who complained to Daly and the individuals objecting to Jackson’s protected activities to call into question the strength of GCRC’s nondiscriminatory proffered reason.

  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 Rejects Honest Belief Defense in Regarded As ADA Claim Based on Circumstantial Evidence That Questioned Employer’s Credibility.

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an ADA “regarded as” discrimination case and rejected the employer’s honest belief defense based on evidence produced by the plaintiff to create a jury question about pretext.   Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists PC, No. 19-5148 (6^th Cir. 11-6-19). First, the plaintiff produced expert witness evidence about the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s professional conduct, which made debatable the reasonableness of the employer’s decision, particularly when no investigation had been conducted before her termination.  In other words, there were no particularized facts supporting the employer’s decision beyond the initial report of allegations.  Second, the plaintiff relied on an email sent by a co-worker claiming that she had been fired because of concerns with her vision.  This was arguably not a stray remark when the co-worker had been requested to send the email by one of the decision-making physicians who failed to deny in his affidavit that he told her what to say.


According to the Court’s opinion, about a month after the experienced plaintiff CNRA was hired in June 2015, a physician noticed that she had poor eyesight (because of how close she had her face to a monitor in order to read it). She admitted that she had “degenerative retinal condition” that made it hard for her to read certain screens and medical records,” but assured him that it did not affect her ability to perform her job.  That physician told another and claimed that the plaintiff would be blind within 10 years, which the plaintiff disputes.   After a few other physicians expressed similar concerns, a meeting was held with the plaintiff on October 30 where she had explained that she had been diagnosed a decade earlier and was requested to obtain medical clearance that she could safely perform her job duties and to consider LTD insurance.  However, one of the physicians indicated that they may need to consult with counsel because her ophthalmologist was unlikely to give them the necessary assurance.   Otherwise, she was told that she was a “good fit” with the practice.


The plaintiff consulted with her ophthalmologist, but the Court noted that there was nothing in the record about what the plaintiff was told or, importantly, what – if anything -- she told her employer.  Apparently at the suggestion of two of the physicians to ensure that she was not misreading data, the plaintiff began having her co-workers read hospital monitors to her and this simply aggravated concerns about her eyesight and these concerns were noted in her performance evaluation.   The employer was then informed of two apparent clinical judgment errors that the plaintiff made in patient care which were unrelated to her eyesight.  No investigation was conducted concerning the errors, but at a partnership meeting the following week, her eyesight and the errors were discussed and the decision was made to terminate her for the alleged errors.   She was informed in mid-January that she was terminated solely because of the supposed errors, which shocked her because no one had questioned her about the issues beforehand.

A new co-worker, after discussing the termination with one of the physicians (who did not have responsibility for HR), then emailed the other CNRAs (at the physician’s direction).  She explained in her email that the plaintiff had been terminated because of concerns with her eyesight and “a few other issues” and that the plaintiff had failed to produce documentation that she could safely perform her job.  The undisputed evidence was that this new employee had never been told why the plaintiff had been fired and instead that she had based her explanation on staff gossip.  The particular physician was never questioned about it during the litigation and his affidavit was strangely silent about what information he told the new employee about why the plaintiff had been terminated.   


The plaintiff found another job as a CNRA and no issues were raised about her eyesight or professional judgment.  She filed an EEOC Charge and sued on the basis that she was illegally terminated because she was regarded as disabled when, in fact, she was not.   During the litigation, she supplied an expert affidavit that the alleged mistakes she had made were not in fact judgment errors, but were normal incidents during which she performed reasonably.   The trial court excluded the expert affidavit, and granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, relying primarily on the honest belief defense.  On appeal, the Court ruled that portions of the expert affidavit were still admissible and could be used to show that the employer’s explanation for her discharge was pretextual.


To prevail on a “regarded as” discrimination claim, the Court held that the plaintiff must show

 that their employer believed they had a “physical or mental impairment,” as that term is defined in federal regulations.  The employer may then rebut this showing by pointing to objective evidence “that the impairment is (in the case of an actual impairment) or would be (in the case of a perceived impairment) both transitory and minor.”

“[E]ven if an employee establishes that their employer “regarded” them as disabled under the aforementioned standard, the employee must still show that their employer discharged them (or took some other form of adverse employment action against them) because of, or “but-for,” their actual or perceived physical or mental impairment.”  This can be shown with either direct evidence or using the circumstantial burden of proof.   Under the latter method, if the employer articulates a non-discriminatory reason for its action, “an employee can show that an employer’s explanation was pretextual in “three interrelated ways”: “(1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the employer’s action, or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate the employer’s action.”  Further, the plaintiff “may also demonstrate pretext by offering evidence which challenges the reasonableness of the employer’s decision to the extent that such an inquiry sheds light on whether the employer’s proffered reason for the employment action was its actual motivation.” At the summary judgment stage, the employee is only required to identify a disputed issue of material fact and is not required to prove her case.


The Court found sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the plaintiff was perceived as disabled:

Viewed in the light most favorable to Babb, the record shows, not only that Maryville physician-owners and employees openly expressed concern about Babb’s “degenerative retinal condition,” including on Babb’s job evaluation and during the meeting at which Maryville decided to fire Babb, but that Maryville’s head of personnel (Dr. Robertson) met with Babb specifically to discuss Babb’s vision, and, during that meeting, asked Babb if she had disability insurance.  See Babb, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 775 (emphasizing this latter fact).  More still, after that meeting, Dr. Robertson advised her colleagues that Babb’s vision issues might require them to consult an attorney.  This is more than enough evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that, in January 2016, Maryville genuinely believed Babb had a “physiological . . . condition” affecting one of her “body systems,” namely, her vision. 

While the Court agreed that requesting a fitness-for-duty examination (as happened here on October 30) cannot be used against the employer, this case was distinguishable from those cases where the employer ONLY requested a fitness-for-duty examination and did not also mention the concerns on a performance evaluation or discuss the medical condition while deciding to terminate the employee, etc.


The Court then found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether the employer’s explanation was pretextual.  First, there was a question about whether the plaintiff’s two errors were in fact errors reflecting terrible clinical judgment which would justify her termination or, based on the expert affidavit, reflected that she performed reasonably under the circumstances.  “This dispute matters because the less serious Babb’s clinical mistakes, the more likely they were not the “real” motivation behind Babb’s termination.” The Court rejected the employer’s honest belief defense because it “failed to make a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking its adverse employment action.” The expert’s affidavit challenged “the likelihood that a reasonable anesthesiology practice would have actually relied on those facts to fire an experienced nurse practitioner like Babb.”


Second, the Court found sufficient disputed evidence as to whether the alleged clinical errors actually motivated the employer’s decision.  The employer insisted that she was fired solely because of the clinical errors and never contended during litigation that her vision posed a safety hazard.  But, hours after the plaintiff had been terminated, a co-worker sent an email immediately after speaking with one of the decision-making physician partners that the plaintiff had been terminated primarily because of questions about her vision.  Finally, her vision was a significant issue of discussion during the meeting when the decision was made to terminate her employment and was even discussed in her performance evaluation.   “If this kind of “smoking gun” evidence cannot get an employment discrimination plaintiff past summary judgment on the question of pretext, it is hard to imagine what could.”


The Court refused to draw any favorable inferences in favor of the employer based on undisputed evidence that the co-worker’s email had contained information which had never been relayed to her by any of the physicians.  Rather, the Court found that the other undisputed facts made the co-worker’s explanation about her source of information a disputed issue of fact that only a jury could resolve.    In particular, ruling in the employer’s favor would require a finding that she “is a credible witness, which, of course, we cannot do at this stage.”


The Court also refused to disregard the co-worker’s email as an irrelevant “stray comment” because, among other things, the particular physician never submitted any evidence about what he told the co-worker in his affidavit and apparently was not deposed about the information either:

Aycocke’s e-mail, however, was not the kind of “stray discriminatory remark,” offered by a “non-decisionmaker,” disconnected to the decisional process,  . . . Rather, Aycocke’s e-mail was a quasi-official communication, written at the behest of one of the key players in Babb’s termination (Dr. Proffitt), almost immediately after Babb’s termination, following an in-person conversation with Dr. Proffitt.  It was not a speculative claim shared privately among colleagues; it does not read like gossip.  Indeed, despite submitting a declaration in discovery,  . . .  Dr. Proffitt has never testified to the contrary.  In light of this rather unique context, then, a jury should decide whether Aycocke based the content of her e-mail on “rumor and innuendo,” as she and Dr. Robertson testified at their depositions, or whether she based it on the word of Dr. Proffitt, as the circumstantial evidence would seem to suggest.  And, if a jury could find that Aycocke based her e-mail on the word of Dr. Proffitt, a jury could also find that Maryville acted pretextually when it fired Babb for “clinical errors.”

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 Rejects Employer's Independent Investigation and Honest Belief Defenses and Finds Cat's Paw Theory

In June, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment in a USERRA retaliation case on the grounds that the plaintiff produced sufficient direct evidence of discrimination, produced sufficient evidence to proceed under a cat’s paw theory and the employer’s explanation was clearly pretextual when the plaintiff had been fired, in part, for engaging in conduct that violated corporate policy as directed in a text message by his allegedly biased manager.  Hickle v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., No. 18-4131 (6^th Cir. 2019).  The employer could not rely on an honest belief defense when the investigator did not interview witnesses to the biased threats to terminate the plaintiff for a pretexual reason on account of his military service and supported the termination of the plaintiff in part for violating a policy at the clear direction of his manager who was allegedly biased against him.   

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired while in high school, joined the national guard, served overseas and was promoted to kitchen manager.  Over the years, his manager repeatedly complained about his military leave and he complained about this to the General Manager.  He was never denied military leave.   When he reported that he required military leave the weekend of a big Avengers movie release in April 2015, his manager indicated in front of another employee that he might be fired if he did not report to work.   He also heard from other employees that his manager was planning to set him up to get fired and he reported this to his manager, who texted him that he should obtain written statements about this before leaving for the day.   Apparently, investigating workplace misconduct is exclusively reserved for corporate employees and obtaining witness statements is considered to be impeding an investigation.  In the meantime, he was involved in a dispute with two subordinates that lead to their termination for trying to take home too many leftover chicken-fingers.  


A corporate investigation commenced and he reported to the investigator that his manager had openly resented his military leave and indicated that he could be fired for attending drill instead of the Avengers premiere.  The investigator also indicated that the General Manager thought he should be fired.  The investigator did not interview the employee who heard the manager threaten the plaintiff with termination.  In the end, the investigator found that the plaintiff had engaged in several instances of misconduct, and he was fired in April 2015 for the chicken finger episode and impeding an investigation, despite the written instruction from his manager.   


On appeal, the Court found that he had produced sufficient direct evidence of retaliation with (disputed) evidence of his manager’s comments to him and his repeated complaints about it to the General Manager and to the investigator even though the discriminatory comments were not made by the decisionmaker or investigator who made the recommendation.   The Court was influenced by the fact that the plaintiff had been terminated for violating a rule at the explicit direction of the manager who had threatened to have him fired for attending national guard drill that same month during the Avengers premiere.

The decisionmaker (Bradley) and those with direct input (Kalman and Melton-Miller) knew about Adler’s persistent, discriminatory comments. . . . In sum, the decisionmaker knew that Hickle was told to commit a fireable offense—gathering statements and thereby impeding an investigation—by someone Hickle had repeatedly said had made discriminatory comments threatening his job.  Yet the decisionmaker chose to fire Hickle.

The Court also found sufficient evidence to proceed to a jury with a cat’s-paw theory of liability.  As previously explained by the Supreme Court, ““if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.”  The trial court did not find it to be a jury question whether the manager intended to cause the plaintiff to be fired when she directed him to obtain witness statements in violation of company policy even though she had very recently told him that he would be fired for a pretextual reason if he missed the Avengers premiere in order to attend military drill.   Drawing inferences in favor of the plaintiff could lead a jury to believe that the manager texted him order to set him up to be fired.


The Court indicated that it was also a question for the jury whether an independent investigation by corporate broke any chain of causation between the manager’s alleged animus and the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment.   On one hand, the plaintiff may have engaged in other misconduct as alleged by other employees involving the chicken-finger incident which was also cited as additional reasons for his termination, but on the other hand, the investigator weighted the “impeding the investigation” more heavily in her deposition testimony and failed to interview key employee witnesses who could have supported the plaintiff’s concerns with anti-military animus. “As best as we can tell, the investigation consisted mostly of gathering statements from a few employees, and was not necessarily thorough.” (But the deposition at issue admittedly was not clear).   Moreover, the investigator referred to the General Manager as her “partner” in the investigation.


The Court also found that the plaintiff produced sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliation, particularly from the employer’s failure to articulate a cogent explanation for why “impeding an investigation” was an dischargeable offense when his own allegedly biased manager directed him to do gather the witness statements at issue.   The Court did not find it to be a close question whether sufficient evidence had been produced merely because the employer had always granted the plaintiff’s military leave requests.

We do not find this fact to be determinative, as there could be numerous situations in which an employer would grant requests for military leave (albeit grudgingly) for years and nevertheless finally wrongfully terminate an employee for taking such leave.  Certainly, granting Hickle’s leave requests helps AMC’s case, but it does not insulate AMC from charges of retaliation.

While the district court found that the employer had satisfied its burden of proving that it would have terminated the plaintiff even if he had never served in the military because of the other incidents alleged by his subordinates, the Court found that this was a question for the jury because:

it remains an open question whether the decisionmaker relied solely on the chicken-finger incident in deciding to terminate Hickle, and whether she would have reached the same conclusion in the absence of the charges of impeding the investigation. 

  The Court distinguished a case where the investigator did not know about the potential discriminatory animus and conducted a more thorough investigation.  The Court also rejected the employer’s honest belief defense when the investigator was aware of the manager’s potentially biased motive in directing the plaintiff to violate corporate policy and obtain witness statements.

Here, [the investigator] knew of Hickle’s USERRA complaints and knew that Adler told Hickle to take action that would amount to impeding the investigation; nevertheless, Bradley seems to have considered the charge of impeding the investigation relevant to the decision.  Thus, the honest-belief rule does not help the defendant.  The “particularized facts that were before [the employer] at the time the decision was made,”  . . ., included Adler’s anti-military comments and her text to Hickle telling him to collect statements.  This was not a case in which the decisionmaker was acting on a clean record and in ignorance of lurking discriminatory motives.  The decisionmaker was fully aware of the facts suggesting that the “impeding the investigation” charge was pretextual.

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 Rejects FMLA Leave to Rest Shoulder (by playing golf) When FMLA Use was Approved Only for Incapacitating Flare-Ups Which Prevented Plaintiff from Working

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an FMLA retaliation claim where the employee was fired after being observed on two occasions playing golf when he had called off work under the FMLA due to a shoulder disability.  LaBelle v. Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., No. 18-2444 (6^th Cir. 9-13-19).  When the employer approved his intermittent leave request, it limited his FMLA use to the monthly “flare-ups” of his shoulder condition and four medical appointments each year.  However, the plaintiff was stacking his FMLA leave in between or following pre-scheduled vacation time, he says, to give his shoulder a rest.  The employer concluded that if he could play golf, he could work.  The FMLA leave was approved for “flare-ups” that incapacitated him, not for rest by playing golf.  The Court agreed and held that the employer did not unlawfully retaliate in firing the employee for FMLA abuse and did not even need to rely on an honest belief defense.

According to the Court’s opinion, the employee suffered bone deterioration from avascular necrosis and had already had hip replacement surgery in 2012.  The condition then began affecting his shoulders, causing him to suffer constant pain.  After receiving disciplinary counselling for attendance in 2016, he explained that he was missing work because of shoulder pain and was directed to seek FMLA leave.  His first FMLA request was denied because he failed to show the necessary incapacity or regular medical treatment for a chronic condition.   His next request from a different physician was granted for intermittent monthly three-day flare-ups and for four medical appointments per year.  


Over the next year, the employer then noticed that the plaintiff suspiciously took his FMLA leave in between or immediately following pre-scheduled vacation and assigned a private investigator to observe him on FMLA days, which suspiciously coincided with the plaintiff’s Tuesday golf league.

The videos showed that the plaintiff’s golf swing was unimpaired without any sign of pain or discomfort.  The employer provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to defend himself from what appeared to be FMLA abuse.   He explained that he was in constant pain and he thought that he could take the FMLA whenever he wanted and so he usually attached them to a weekend or other time off in order to give his shoulders the maximum rest from his repetitive duties. He claimed that golf was not nearly as hard on his shoulders as his job.  

The employer concluded that if the plaintiff was well enough to golf, he was well enough to work and terminated his employment.  He pursued union arbitration, but lost.  He then filed his federal lawsuit, alleging both FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation.  


The Court agreed that he had no interference claim because the employer permitted him to take FMLA leave and only fired him after he returned to work.  As for his retaliation claim, the plaintiff pointed to emails where the HR employees expressed hostility to FMLA use and desire to terminate some slackers.   However, in attempting to prove pretext, he did not argue that his golfing was not the actual reason for his termination.  Instead, he argued that his golfing did not constitute FMLA abuse – i.e., that the employer’s articulated reason for his termination had no basis in fact.   Sadly for him, the Court agreed with the employer that his FMLA use had only been approved for medical appointments and flare-ups, not for rest.

But occasional rest to alleviate low-level background pain is not what his FMLA leave was for.  Thus, as the arbitrator put it, “[t]here is no doubt that [LaBelle] did not use his FMLA leave in accordance with the restrictions imposed by [his doctor], or in accordance with the purposes of the law.”  . . .  If LaBelle had constant pain that required occasional long weekends to mitigate, he should have requested FMLA leave for that purpose.   

The Court found that the plaintiff failed his burden of showing that the employer’s reason had no basis in fact.  Accordingly, the employer need not rely on an “honest belief” defense that it honestly believed the plaintiff had abused his FMLA leave even if the golf game constituted rest from his repetitive motion duties. 

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 be changed or 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.

Employer’s Evaluation of Inconsistent Witness Accounts Does Not Show Dishonest Belief

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an age and reverse race discrimination claim based on the employer’s honest belief – despite contradictory information produced during its investigation – that the plaintiff had violated company policy.  Hardesty v. Kroger Co., No. 18-3378 (6^th Cir. 1-23-19).   Choosing between inconsistent accounts given during an investigation does not create an issue of fact about the employer’s bad faith.  The investigation was sufficiently diligent to be worthy of credence and the Court refused to second-guess the harshness of the punishment.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired six months earlier to conduct telephone interviews with job applicants for a new store.  He was observed by a co-worker hanging up on calls directed to his desk so that he could continue a discussion with another co-worker and this was reported to management as to time, place and witnesses.  There seemed to be a discrepancy whether she saw this happen two or three times.  The company’s “customer first” policy requires applicants to be given excellent customer service.  An investigation was conducted which showed that his average call time was under 2 minutes per call, compared to an average of 5 minutes per call.  The call logs did not track individual calls.  When confronted, the plaintiff explained that he just spoke quicker than his co-workers.  The other co-worker denied noticing the plaintiff hanging up on callers, but this was not mentioned in the investigation report.  Although the plaintiff was given the option of resigning, he chose termination.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the failure to mention in the report that another witnesses could not corroborate the allegation showed consciousness of guilt and doubt in the truth of the allegations against him.  It found this argument to require a strained and unreasonable inference to be drawn:

Even assuming that [his co-worker’s] inability to corroborate the accusation can be fairly read to refute it, investigations often produce conflicting evidence, requiring an employer to evaluate credibility and weigh various pieces of information.  Just because an employer must choose between inconsistent accounts “does not mean that there inevitably is a genuine issue of fact concerning the employer’s good faith.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s attack on the Company’s reliance on the significant discrepancy in the average call times: “exceptionally short call times could reflect a pattern of dishonest behavior and reveal a practice of failing to properly screen applicants or disconnecting calls.”

While the employer may have left some stones unturned (like checking surveillance footage to see if the reporting employee actually walked by the plaintiff’s cubicle as described),

when we evaluate the honesty of an employer’s belief, we do not require evidence of an optimal decisional process or a scorched-earth investigation.  Smith, 155 F.3d at 807.  “[T]he key inquiry is whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking an adverse employment action.”   

In any event, the evidence showed that the employer conducted a thorough and sufficiently diligent investigation which was worthy of credence:

She spoke to all potential witnesses, scrutinized Hardesty’s call logs for any suspicious patterns, sought advice from her colleagues in human resources and operations, and met with [the plaintiff] to clarify why his logs reflected such short phone calls as compared to his team’s average.  After reviewing all the data she believed available, she concluded that [the plaintiff] likely released at least one incoming call and determined that this warranted immediate termination.  “That [the plaintiff] or the court might have come to a different conclusion if they had conducted the investigation is immaterial.”  Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274, 287 (6th Cir. 2012).

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his alleged misconduct did not warrant termination under the employer’s prior administration of its policies.  However, he apparently failed to identify a comparator who was sufficiently similarly-situated who was treated differently (i.e., better) because the alleged comparator’s actions may not have violated the policy.  Unfortunately, the Court did not elaborate.

Not a single Kroger employee involved in [this] investigation ever questioned whether hanging up on a customer merited termination.  And “disputes about the interpretation of company policy do not typically create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a company’s stated reason for an adverse employment action is only a pretext designed to mask unlawful discrimination.”

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 be changed or 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.