Gray v State Farm Was Amended to Clarify Cat's Paw Theory and Breaks in Causation

 In August, I posted about an interesting Cat’s Paw theory case, Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.,  (6^th Cir. 2025), where the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer's summary judgement due to possible selective enforcement of a time card fraud policy by a manager in retaliation for the plaintiff's prior protected conduct. 

As I briefly explained:

In July, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a retaliation claim where the plaintiff claimed that she was investigated and then fired in retaliation for assisting a co-worker assert her rights under the ADA and be transferred away from her discriminatory supervisor.  Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 145 F.4th 630 (6^th Cir. 2025).   When her co-worker’s discriminatory supervisor filled in for the plaintiff’s supervisor shortly after the protected conduct, he launched an unprompted and unprecedented investigation into the plaintiff’s time cards by comparing them to her computer use.  No other employee was investigated – despite similar discrepancies -- and the plaintiff was ultimately fired for time card abuse.  

The Court agreed that the evidence aligned with its precedent holding that “employees can establish prima facie causation by showing that their employer began scrutinizing them more heavily shortly after they engaged in protected activity, and then used its findings to justify termination.” The plaintiff was able to show that the discriminatory supervisor knew of her assistance to her co-worker and his retaliatory intent under a “cat’s paw” theory of vicarious liability. 

While the employer may have avoided direct liability under an honest belief theory, the supervisor’s actions could not. A “supervisor does not have to lie in order to be biased. As we have repeatedly recognized, a supervisor can cause an employee’s termination by reporting true yet selective information.”  Moreover, although “an employer can escape liability by conducting ‘an in-depth and truly independent investigation’ into an otherwise biased report,  . . . when a supervisor reports true but selective information, an investigation will always confirm the supervisor’s allegation.”  In this case, the employer and HR failed to take the plaintiff’s complaint of retaliation seriously or to compare her misconduct to other employees before terminating her employment.

The Court then held a re-hearing and amended its decision and dissent in December.   Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 159 F.4th 1024 (6th Cir. 2025).   Here is some of the additional text that was then added to its decision (emphasis added):

A simple example illustrates why. Imagine a workplace where five employees were engaged in the same pattern of misconduct. If a supervisor made a true but selective report of wrongdoing against one of the five employees because of that employee's race, they would be attempting to use the company's human resources as the "conduit" for their bias. See Romans v. Michigan Dep't of Hum. Services, 668 F.3d 826, 835 (6th Cir. 2012). If human resources then opened an independent investigation into that one employee, it would confirm the biased report, but it would not necessarily negate the supervisor's bias in singling out one employee based on race. That's why the Supreme Court "declined to adopt [] a hard-and-fast rule" that "an independent investigation has a claim-preclusive effect" or "somehow relieves the employer of 'fault.'" Staub, 562 U.S. at 420-21.

              . . . 

Our decision today does not impose a bright-line rule that a supervisor's true-but selective report will always be the proximate cause of any subsequent adverse employment action. Rather, we simply echo Staub's holding that a subsequent investigation that does nothing more than confirm a supervisor's true-but-selective report is by itself insufficient to break the chain of proximate causation.  . . . . An employer can still negate causation by establishing that "the employer's investigation result[ed] in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original biased action."  . . . . . Put another way, an employer will not be liable if its investigation uncovers a superseding "cause of independent origin that was not foreseeable" from the supervisor's biased action . . .

We have previously held that the existence of a superseding cause is a question of fact.  . . .

Here, the undisputed record shows that [the manager] reported [the plaintiff] for "manually changing" her time entries and identified three discrepancies as proof of that fact. [The employer’s] HR employee,  . . . , thereafter conducted her own investigation that revealed additional discrepancies beyond the three identified by [the manager], including instances where [the plaintiff] reported working while she was not in the building. [The employer] claims that it fired [her] based on these additional out-of building discrepancies. On summary judgment, the question that we must answer is whether [her] termination based on these additional discrepancies was so "unrelated" to [his] original report and so "not foreseeable" by him that no reasonable factfinder could find proximate causation.

We hold that this question cannot be answered as a matter of law. [The manager] reported generally that [the plaintiff] was "manually changing" her time, not that she had done so only in the three instances that he identified. He also falsely informed [HR] that [she] had previously been reprimanded for similar conduct, suggesting that his report concerned a broad pattern of timekeeping issues. And he suggested in his report to HR that an investigation of [her] would uncover additional timekeeping errors. Given that [his] report and [her] termination both related to [her] timekeeping entries, a reasonable jury could find that the former improperly influenced—and was a proximate cause of—the latter.

Our decision in Romans does not counsel otherwise. Romans does not stand for the proposition that an independent investigation always breaks the chain of causation. Nor could it after the Supreme Court's rejection of that argument in Staub. It instead held that the independent investigation broke the causal chain because of the particular facts at issue in that case. There, the decisionmaker expressly disclaimed reliance on an allegedly biased report and conducted a separate investigation into the plaintiff's alleged misconduct.  . . . . The separate investigation found that the plaintiff had "violated four work rules, only one of which was related to [the allegedly biased] report, and each of which would have individually supported a termination."  . . . Therefore, Romans falls comfortably within the scenario delineated in Staub where an independent investigation "results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original biased action."  . . .

By contrast, here, [the employer] relied on [the manager’s] report and opened an investigation that confirmed his allegations. [It] then took the adverse action that [his] report was "designed and intended" to produce by firing [her] for timekeeping discrepancies.  . . . . So a jury could conclude that [its] investigation took into account [his] biased report and failed to determine that the adverse action was justified apart from his recommendation.  . . . . Romans supports rather than undermines this analysis.

The  dissent continued to elaborate why the  independent investigation by HR, which uncovered additional and more sever timekeeping violations, should have resulted in summary judgment as breaking the cat’s paw causation. 

 

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 Upholds Termination for Time Card Fraud Despite Cat's Paw Theory or Suspicious Timing

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment for terminating an employee for time-card fraud despite his arguments about failure to accommodate, retaliation and a cat’s paw theory that was remarkably similar to an earlier decision in   Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 159 F.4th 1024 (6^th Cir. 2025) (finding possible selective enforcement of time card fraud policy in cat’s paw retaliation case).   Shears v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 24-3915 (6^th Cir. 1/5/26).  The Shears Court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion for the first time on appeal that his misconduct was caused by brain fog from his known disability and should have been accommodated.  The Court rejected all retaliation claims, regardless of the suspicious timing, because there was insufficient evidence of pretext, such as comparators receiving better treatment, knowledge by the initiating manager of prior protected activity or deviation from policy, etc.  The employer also conducted several reasonable investigations, entitling it to the honest belief defense.   Unlike the Gray case, there was apparently insufficient evidence presented to the trial court about selective investigation of time card fraud.

According to the Court’s decision, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2012 and had been granted an accommodation to work only days from 2012 to March 2019. In  January 2019, he  assisted co-workers with sexual harassment complaints against his manager.  There was no evidence that the manager was aware of this.  During a work emergency, his manager assigned him to work nights again despite his complaints until he mentioned his diabetes and was requested to provide medical documentation.  He did in April and was immediately returned to day shift.  Afterwards, his manager investigated and discovered time card discrepancies ranging from 36-106 minutes during March 2019.  These were investigated and confirmed by his director, HR and a separate safety committee.  Plaintiff was interviewed several times and apparently never claimed retaliation or different scrutiny. He was fired in May 2019.   

The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer.  Employer was granted summary judgment.  The employer articulated a legitimate basis to terminate him for time card fraud, and the plaintiff never disputed that he had had not entered the plant at times he had reported being at work. The employer was also entitled to the honest belief defense because it had conducted several reasonable investigations to confirm the facts and given him the opportunity to respond. 

The courts rejected his reasonable accommodation claims.  First, he had failed to show any unreasonable delay in March when the employer was entitled to medical documentation and immediately provided his requested accommodation once he produced it and abandoned this theory on appeal.  It also rejected his new argument that his discrepancies were caused by brain fog from his known diabetes because “a failure-to-accommodate claim requires proof that the employer denied a reasonable accommodation—not that it disciplined or discharged an employee whose disability allegedly contributed to the underlying conduct.”  It found that he failed to prove this theory and found his cited cases distinguishable.  What the Court did not note is that the EEOC Guidance from 2008 had previously provided that an employer is not required to accommodate misconduct caused by a disability unless the employee had put the employer on notice of the need for an accommodation of that issue: 

When an employee does not give notice of the need for accommodation until after a performance problem has occurred, reasonable accommodation does not require that the employer   . . . tolerate or excuse the poor performance; . . . withhold disciplinary action (including termination) warranted by the poor performance . . . .

The Court also rejected the ADA retaliation because he could not show pretext when admitting the time card discrepancies and without similarly situated comparators who were treated better.  His excuses for his actions did not dispute the action and the employer not required to believe his “honest mistake” defense.   He might have prima facie case from the timing of his termination compared to his request to return to the day shift, but he lacked evidence of pretext to rebut the intervening causation factor of his time card fraud.

The Court also rejected his Cat’s Paw Theory because there was apparently no evidence that his manager was aware about his prior protected Title VII conduct in assisting his co-workers sexual harassment allegations.  There were also independent investigations and plaintiff had insufficient evidence that other employees engaged in similar misconduct without being fired or that he had ever alleged such similar misconduct during the employer’s multiple investigations and interviews.   In other words, there was insufficient evidence of selective enforcement by his manager of the time card fraud issues to support a cat’s paw theory.

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.

Divided Franklin County Court of Appeals Finds Noose By Itself to Be Sufficiently Severe for Hostile Work Environment

Last week, a divided Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on racially hostile work environment and retaliation claims.  Croley v. JDM Servs., L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-4762.  The Court found that the existence of a noose in a vehicle temporarily assigned to a new African-American employee on his second day of work by itself – without any racial comments or other  evidence – was sufficient to create a jury question whether it was intended to harass and intimidate him on account of his race.  Similarly, the later spontaneous shattering of  his assigned vehicle’s windshield – with a pre-existing hole in it – was also sufficient to create a jury question whether it had been shot out without any other evidence of a gun or bullet fragment.  Finally, the employer’s termination of the employee for refusing to permit a sample to be taken from the noose to compare to other rope on the worksite during its investigation of his allegations was found create a jury question of retaliation when the employer had not already gathered rope samples before the employee’s refusal based on his mistrust of the employer.  The Court conceded that there was sufficient holes in the plaintiff's case for a jury to rule in favor of the employer, but felt that the jury should make the decision instead of the trial court. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired on January 10 by the employer’s General Manager and began work on January 13. On January 14, the GM directed that the plaintiff be trained on the compacter, which he was by two different employees.  During a ride on the compacter, he grabbed a rope for stability, but did not find it helpful.  Later, while alone in the compactor, he realized that the rope was a noose hung from the rearview mirror and it made him extremely fearful.  He took the noose and hung it from the door of the employee trailer.   That night, he reported it to the employment agency and the next day, January 15, the GM questioned him about it, reiterated that the employer does not tolerate discrimination and commenced an investigation.  The plaintiff put the noose in his truck for safekeeping and refused to turn it over to the employer, although he did let them see it and inspect it.  The following week, the windshield of the vehicle he was operating had a small hole in it and then spontaneously shattered while he was in it.   He believed that the windshield had been shot out by a gun and saw the GM’s vehicle parked up the hill.   A few days later, he was again requested for the noose or a piece of it so that it could be compared to other rope at the work site during the employer’s investigation.  While he allowed the noose to be inspected in his presence, he again refused to turn it over or permit a sample to be taken and was fired for insubordination for impeding the investigation.

After the plaintiff was terminated, the owner reported him for making criminal threats against a co-worker, but the co-worker told the police that he did not feel threatened and nothing came of it.  The employee filed suit in October.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on the discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims.  The Court of Appeals reversed the harassment and retaliation claims, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to evaluate.

While the Court’s majority conceded that many courts would not find the noose incident – by itself – to constitute a hostile work environment, it disagreed:

The noose is a symbol of this nation’s violent legacy against African Americans and brings them “ ‘the grim specter of racially motivated violence’ that continues today.”  . . . . The noose is “among the most repugnant of all racist symbols, because it is itself an instrument of violence.”

Historically, the noose is forever “linked to lynching, the Ku Klux Klan (“KKK”), and the murdering of thousands of African-Americans.” . . .

 . . . .

 . . . For the reasons above, we conclude the act of hanging a noose on the mirror of an African American’s vehicle is undoubtedly an unwelcome form of harassment based on race.

 . . . .

 . . .  The question becomes whether the act of hanging a noose on the vehicle assigned to an African American male, on his second day of work at the facility, is severe enough conduct to support a hostile work environment claim. We unequivocally answer this question in the affirmative.

 . . . .

 . . . Even in cases where the noose does not appear directed at a particular individual, given the noose’s dark legacy, a reasonable African American employee could be forever altered by such a visceral symbol in the workplace. African Americans who observe such a heinous symbol should not be required to explain the violent history of the noose and how it can invoke fear and anxiety. The threat of a noose is self-evident.3

The Court also believed that the window spontaneously shattering while the plaintiff was inside could also be considered by a jury as evidence of harassment even though no shell casings or bb or pellet was found afterwards that might have explained why it shattered.  It also rejected the employer’s explanation that windshields periodically shatter at the worksite because of the regular vibrations.

As the window incident occurred only a week after the display of the noose, we find, considering the evidence in a light most in favor of the nonmoving party, the incident amounts to threatening conduct that indicates a willingness to act on the statement made by the noose incident. Because the window incident amounts to a physical threat of violence, the implicit threat from the noose is heightened and, based on the close sequence of events, could reasonably be construed to have a racial animus. Finally, there is a dispute of fact as to liability as [the plaintiff] claims that [the GM’s] vehicle was in the immediate vicinity when the glass shattered.

The dissent, realizing that nooses exist for reasons other than lynching, required more evidence than the bare existence of a noose:

The dissent contends that “[o]ther than the noose, there are no credible allegations of any race-based comments or other activity involving race. The noose is not connected to any threatening intent or racial animus by [the employer].”

 . . . .

 . . . At this phase of the case, however, we are limited to determining whether a dispute of fact exists for trial. Given the line of cases that have found that the single display of a noose in the workplace can create a hostile work environment, we find it is the province of the jury to determine whether the alleged conduct in this case is severe or pervasive enough to demonstrate a hostile work environment claim. What the dissent proposes is that, as a matter of law, leaving a noose in the vehicle of an African American male does not constitute a severe enough act, without more, to create a hostile work environment. In good conscience, we cannot support such an approach. While a jury could very well find that the alleged incident was not severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment claim, the argument that hanging a noose in the excavator that [the plaintiff] was assigned to operate could not, as a matter of law, sufficiently alter the conditions of employment for an African American is untenable.

The Court then found that the employer could be held liable for the noose incident because it was alleged (without any evidence) that the GM had put it there since he was the individual who had assigned the plaintiff to that vehicle on that date.   The Court refused to credit the employer with conducting an investigation – despite its employee interviews – because it had delayed a few hours in retrieving and safeguarding the noose and had not gathered rope samples before firing the plaintiff for refusing to permit a sample to be taken.

It is the province of the jury to resolve whether the [the employer] took reasonable steps to correct the alleged behavior. Furthermore, there is a dispute of fact whether [the plaintiff] unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities that the employer provided. The [employer] commenced an investigation into the matter and met with [the plaintiff]. [He] agreed to show them the noose but refused to leave the noose or allow it to be cut for comparison with other rope at the worksite. [He]  explained that he did not feel comfortable turning over the noose or allowing them to cut a piece of it because he did not trust [the owner]. It is for the jury to resolve these factual disputes.

The Court rejected certain evidence submitted by the plaintiff to support his hostile work environment claim because he was unaware of the incidents until after he had been fired.  For example, he had been written up (without his knowledge) for improper operation of certain equipment.  They also rejected the police report as part of this claim because it happened after his termination.  ““ ‘Plaintiff cannot use events that happened after his termination to support his hostile work environment claim.’ ”

The Court also concluded that he had produced sufficient evidence that his termination was retaliatory for complaining about the noose incident.   While generally employees may be terminated for refusing to cooperate with a workplace investigation, there are exceptions and the Court found the plaintiff’s distrust of his employer to be sufficiently protected conduct in this situation to let a jury decide whether his distrust was justified and protected.

Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to [the plaintiff], a jury could reasonably determine that turning over evidence to a supervisor you do not trust, or allowing that evidence to be damaged, is a reasonable nonparticipation in the investigative process. This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that when [he] initially informed [the GM] of the noose’s location outside the employee trailer, [the GM] failed to [immediately] retrieve and secure the noose. Furthermore, [the plaintiff], despite his trepidations, repeatedly allowed the noose to be inspected. A jury could reasonably believe [his] explanation that his claim could be hindered if the noose was damaged or not be properly preserved. Conversely, the [employer] have represented that they wanted the noose to aid in the investigation. Given the accusation at issue, there is at least a dispute of fact that [his] fears were justified.

In addition, the plaintiff met several times with the employer and answered their questions.  His only refusal concerned preservation of the integrity and safekeeping of the noose.  Moreover, his termination came only days after his protected conduct in reporting the alleged harassment.

We find that the [the employer] have provided a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for terminating [his] employment. A reasonable jury could find that failure to turn over the noose, or allow it to be cut, unreasonably impeded the investigation providing a legitimate reason for termination.

The Court then required the plaintiff to show that the employer’s explanation was pretext for retaliation.

[The plaintiff] can demonstrate pretext by introducing evidence that he provided the noose on multiple occasions to further the investigation. [He] had also previously allowed [the GM] to take the noose when he left it outside the employee trailer. [The owner] had not collected any samples of rope from around the worksite to compare it with the noose, did not offer to keep the noose in a neutral location, and never called law enforcement to report the incident.  .. . .  A jury could reasonably believe [the plaintiff’s] explanation for not wanting to turn the noose over to the appellees or allow them to cut a portion of the noose.

There was no discussion in the Court’s retaliation opinion about post-termination conduct of the employer in reporting the plaintiff for alleged criminal threats.  There was also no discussion of the same-actor inference since the alleged harasser was also the same individual who hired him only days earlier.  There was no also discussion of the racial composition of the workforce, which might have put more context in the plaintiff’s paranoia.

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 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 matters 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 plaintiff's 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.