Although Plaintiff Was Not Plainly Superior Candidate, He Could Still Prove Pretext With Disputed Comments

On Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment in an age discrimination failure-to-hire case, but affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s retaliation claim.   Aday v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 21-3115 (6^th Cir. 1/24/22).   The Court discussed alternative ways for a plaintiff to prove that an employer’s explanation is pretextual in a failure to hire case and permitted the case the be resolved by a jury based on only two ageist comments from debatable decisionmakers.  The Court agreed that the plaintiff had not proven that he was the plainly superior candidate, in part because of the comparative leadership experience and because that he wanted to remotely manage his team from Seattle, far away from any company office.  However, when considering what would typically be “stray remarks” from arguably non-decisionmakers that may have indicated an age bias and a discriminatory atmosphere together with evidence that he had comparable qualifications to the successful candidates, the Court found sufficient evidence of pretext to let a jury decide the outcome.  The Court also rejected the argument that the employer's counterclaim was objectively baseless. 

Background

According to the Court’s decision, the 63-year old plaintiff has worked successfully for 40 years and received both promotions and transfers into leadership and other significant positions.  When his domestic partner accepted a job in Seattle, he sought authorization to work remotely from there or, in the alternative, to be transferred into a different management position for the Central U.S. which he would manage remotely from Seattle.  His own manager supported his efforts.  While he was denied authorization to work remotely, he was permitted to work from Ohio as long as he wished.   Although he interviewed well for the new management position, a 50-year old employee from Toledo with 22 years of comparable experience who had been a direct report of the hiring manager was chosen.   The employer later explained that there were questions about his passion for the position and his intent to manage his team from Seattle.

The plaintiff claimed that the hiring manager’s superior once joked to him over a lunch that he would be the next person to retire.  He also alleged that a co-worker claimed to have spoken with the interviewing/draft management team about the hiring decision and reported that they felt that it was time for the plaintiff to retire. He eventually retired, moved to Seattle and brought suit for age discrimination.  The employer filed a counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets and the plaintiff responded by amending his complaint to add a retaliation claim.  The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims and the plaintiff appealed.

There was no dispute about whether the plaintiff had alleged a prima facie case of age discrimination and the focus of the Court’s opinion was on whether or not he had created a factual dispute (for a jury to resolve) about whether the employer’s explanation was pretextual.  The standard way to show pretext is “that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.”  However, in a failure-to-hire context, a plaintiff

may prove pretext through the relative-qualifications test. . . . that either (1) he was the “plainly superior candidate, such that no reasonable employer would have chosen the latter applicant over the former,” or (2) he “was as qualified as if not better qualified” than Somogyi and Zito and the record contains “other probative evidence of discrimination.”

Not a Plainly Superior Candidate

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to produce objective evidence that he was plainly superior candidate. Courts will not act as a super-personnel department to second guess business decisions.   “If two reasonable decisionmakers could consider the candidates’ qualifications and arrive at opposite conclusions as to who is more qualified, then clearly one candidate’s qualifications are not significantly better than the others.” In other words, “[s]imply being “more qualified” is not sufficient to prove Plaintiff is the plainly superior candidate.”  Similarly, giving a good job interview does not make one plainly superior.

While the plaintiff had more industry and technical expertise than the other candidates, simply being more qualified than them on one aspect of the job was insufficient by itself to satisfy his burden of proof.  “[E]ven if Plaintiff were considered the candidate with marginally better technical experience, no reasonable juror could conclude he was the plainly superior candidate under the Sixth Circuit’s exacting standard, especially considering technical experience is only one facet of the job.”

The Court was less impressed with his prior “leadership experience.”  The hiring manager recalled his six years leading a team and he had seemed stressed and overworked.  Indeed, he had left that position to become an individual contributor as an claims specialist and this contributed to the decision that he lacked sufficient desire for a leadership role.  One of the other candidates had 11 years of “incredible” leadership experience and the other had comparable leadership experience.  “In terms of leadership experience, no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was the plainly superior candidate.”

The Court also disagreed that plaintiff’s desired work location in Seatle made him more qualified to supervise a team in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota and Illinois.  However, “anything requiring in-person attendance would incur a greater expense” because the other candidates were working more closely to the rest of the company.  This concern with his remote work location had been expressed to the plaintiff repeatedly throughout the process.

In his best-case scenario, a reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff had marginally better technical training, had better leadership experience than Zito , and was in a marginally better geographic location. This is not enough.

Plaintiff has not produced enough evidence from which any reasonable juror could conclude that he had better leadership experience than Somogyi.

Comparative Qualifications with Some Other Evidence

Plaintiff could not show that he was plainly superior because of his comparable leadership experience and questions about his ability to effectively manage remotely from Seattle.  To prevail on the alternative argument, the plaintiff need not show that he was the indisputably best candidate; he need only show that his qualifications made him arguably “as qualified.”  He satisfied this burden with the employer’s admission that he had been ranked as one of the top four candidates.  

The second prong requires other probative evidence of discrimination.  For this, the plaintiff proffered two statements made to him: a joke about him being the next to retire and a disputed allegation by a co-worker that the hiring managers had expressed their belief that he should retire.  The Court held this was sufficient evidence:

By themselves, neither  . . . .  comment would likely be sufficient to create a genuine dispute. However, considering the comments together, we believe Plaintiff has produced probative evidence of discrimination.

The parties disputed whether the joke was made by anyone involved in the decision to hire the plaintiff.  However, the jokester was the hiring manager’s manager and had the authority to override her decision (although he had rarely done so). “Nevertheless, we need not determine whether Bowers was a decisionmaker because this Court has ‘held that discriminatory remarks, even by a nondecisionmaker, can serve as probative evidence of pretext.’” Further, it was irrelevant at this stage that everyone admitted the comment was a joke. “This Court has held, however, that statements may be probative evidence of discrimination even if they are made as a joke.”  This joke could contribute to a discriminatory atmosphere where discriminatory decisions are made.

We noted that evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere “may serve as circumstantial evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff.” . . . And while a workplace atmosphere replete with discrimination is not conclusive proof that an individual plaintiff is the victim of age discrimination, a discriminatory atmosphere “‘tend[s] to add “color” to the employer’s decisionmaking processes and to the influences behind the actions taken with respect to the individual plaintiff.’” . . .  Here, Bowers was a very senior leader at Westfield and his willingness to comment on and “joke” about a junior employee’s retirement status in the midst of that employee’s search for a new position could reasonably be interpreted as contributing to a discriminatory atmosphere at Westfiel

While the co-worker admitted telling the plaintiff that he should retire, he denied ever speaking with any of the hiring managers about the decision.   Nonetheless, the Court found that a jury could decide to credit the plaintiff’s memory – that his co-worker had in fact claimed to have spoken with the hiring managers – over the co-worker’s denial that he had ever done so. 

General Pretext

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s other evidence of pretext.  Although he was able to cast sufficient doubt on one of the employer’s explanations, he did not have evidence showing that the other explanations lacked a basis in fact, etc.

With respect to plaintiff’s perceived lack of passion for the position, he pointed out that one of the successful candidates had applied for any and every position after her current position had been eliminated.    The other candidate had previously left the industry altogether at one point to pursue a different field.   The plaintiff had also scored highly on an assessment.  “Considering all this, a reasonable juror could conclude that Lilly’s explanation that Plaintiff lacked passion for the Unit Leader position had no basis in fact and was pretextual.”

Plaintiff has cast doubt on some—but not all—of the reasons Defendants articulated for not hiring him. While [the hiring manager’s] explanation that he lacked passion for the Unit Leader position arguably has no basis in fact, Plaintiff has failed to cast doubt on [her] subjective beliefs that one candidate had more relevant experience and the other candidate presented a more creative plan. Since these are both nondiscriminatory bases for choosing to hire [them] over Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not created a genuine dispute under the general pretext test.

No Retaliation for Counterclaim

The plaintiff’s retaliation claim was based on the employer’s filing of a counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The Court rejected this argument as well. 

While ‘”an employer is not barred from filing a well-grounded, objectively based action against an employee who has engaged in a protected activity,”. in some situations, the filing of counterclaims may constitute adverse employment action.  . . . The central question is whether the counterclaims are filed “not in good faith and instead motivated by retaliation.” . . . Stated differently, the Court must find (1) “the employer acted with retaliatory motive” and (2) that the employer’s counterclaims “lack a reasonable basis in fact or law.”

The employer’s claim was based on the plaintiff emailing trade secrets to the personal email accounts of himself and his domestic partner.   The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not used improper means to access the information in violation of any policy and there was no evidence that anyone other than the plaintiff had accessed any trade secrets.   The plaintiff argued that the claims were “objectively baseless” because of the lack of precedent condemning emailing confidential information to an employee’s personal email account. “A claim is not objectively baseless simply because it fails.”

Defendants’ argument is not nearly as outlandish as Plaintiff tries to make it seem. Courts around the country have considered whether emails sent to oneself can constitute misappropriation. For example, in Aon PLC v. Infinite Equity, Inc., No. 19 C 7504, 2021 WL 4192072, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2021), the court found there was a reasonable likelihood of success on a misappropriation claim when an employee “forwarded emails from his Aon email address to his personal email address.” See generally
Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Assocs. Inc., No. 2:12-CV-02554-SVW-SS, 2013 WL 12182602, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2013); CPI Card Grp., Inc. v. Dwyer, 294 F. Supp. 3d 791, 809 (D. Minn. 2018). Having failed to prove Defendants’ counterclaims lack a reasonable basis in fact or law, for this reason alone, Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation must fail.

The Court also rejected the argument that the employer’s counterclaim was retaliatory because it knew that other employees emailed information to themselves but only sued him for it after he brought an age discrimination claim.

There are many reasons an employer would not litigate every infraction employees commit. However, after an employee has hauled an employer into court, it is entirely reasonable for the employer to file its claims for minor infractions. Additionally, Defendants only filed the counterclaims after Plaintiff brought the conduct to their attention. During the parties’ initial disclosures, Plaintiff mentioned he had emailed documents to his personal email account. Defendants sought leave to file the counterclaims after taking the time to audit Plaintiff’s email account. Finally, these were compulsory counterclaims that, if not filed in the present action, would be barred in future litigation.

 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 Narrows Non-Compete to One Year for Holding Management Position and Eliminates Restriction on Practicing Medical Specialty

Earlier this month, a unanimous Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s limited enforcement of a non-compete clause imposed on a burn surgeon.  MetroHealth Sys. v. Khandelwal, 2022-Ohio-77. The trial court had refused to enforce any restriction on the surgeon practicing medicine, but shortened the two-year restrictions to one year on the physician acting in a leadership capacity for a competitor within the restricted territory and from soliciting patients, employees or referral sources. “The prevention of ordinary competition is not a legitimate business interest that can be protected by a restrictive covenant.” The evidence established that most patients chose the closest burn center, making competition for patients relatively rare.  The trial court had indefinitely enjoined the physician from using proprietary information and left pending tortious interference claims. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the physician was an experienced burn surgeon who was hired in 2015 with a one-year and 10 miles non-competition agreement.  The non-competition restriction was expanded the following year to a two-year and 35 miles and a few years later he was promoted.  In March 2020, he gave three months’ advance notice that he was going to the only other competing facility within 35 miles of the employer.  The employer brought suit to enjoin him from working in any capacity for the competitor for two years.  After a three-day hearing, the trial court agreed only to prevent the physician from holding a management position and from soliciting the employer’s patients, employees or referral sources for one year, but refused to enjoin him from practicing medicine for the competitor.  The court also enjoined the physician from using or disclosing any of the employer’s proprietary or privileged information indefinitely. The trial court did not resolve claims for misappropriation of trade secrets or tortious interference with contract, which remain pending.  The employer appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order and limited restrictions.

The Court noted that under Ohio law,

A covenant restraining a physician-employee from competing with his employer upon termination of employment is unreasonable where it imposes undue hardship on the physician and is injurious to the public, the physician’s services are vital to the health, care and treatment of the public, and the demand for his medical expertise is critical to the people in the community.

The employer had argued that the physician had specialized knowledge from his management position of the strengths and weaknesses of the employer, as well as knowledge of confidential information and relationships with its referral sources in a five-county area.  The physician testified that the relationships were between entities and not with individual physicians, like himself.   There was also testimony that burn patients generally seek the closest burn hospital, rather than a particular physician.  Accordingly, in light of the limited competition, the Court found that the trial court had not been arbitrary or capricious in refusing to enjoin the physician from practice medicine in his specialty despite the non-compete clause.

Further, the Court found that the physician would be harmed by a restriction.  He could lose his certification and his skills would atrophy if he were prevented from practicing his specialty for two years.   He might even have trouble getting credentialed if he had to wait two years.   The Court rejected the argument that he could work as a locum tenens positions because no such specific positions had been identified and it would be hardship to travel so much during the pandemic.   Further, his family had established roots in community since moving there from Arkansas in 2015 and did not want to relocate far from the area or his daughters’ schools.  His wife has medical specialty that requires her to work within 15 miles of her assigned hospital.

The Court also found that the public would be harmed due to a shortage of qualified burned physicians because it was a relatedly rare specialty.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s shortening of the two-year restriction on the physician holding a leadership position with the competitor.   Because, as mentioned, the evidence established that patients typically chose the closest burn center (meaning little competition between the two entities), there was little likelihood of harm from the physician having a leadership position after the passage of a year and little reason to extend the restriction to two years.  The Court also noted that two years was “not standard practice.”

 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.

Employer's Inadvertent Actions Effectively Ended Workplace Harassment, and Thus, Were Reasonable.

In June, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on workplace harassment and retaliation claims where the plaintiff had alleged that the employer’s investigation and response to the harassment claims were inadequate and denied her a promotion in retaliation for her complaints.  Doe v. City of Detroit, 3 F.4^th 294 (6^th Cir. 2021).   The plaintiff had been subjected to anonymous threats by a co-worker.  Although the employer interviewed a suspect following the second incident, it did not interview him following any of the death threats.  The Court affirmed dismissal of the hostile work environment claims because the employer’s response to each incident was reasonable and the final action – in inadvertently suspending and relocating the suspect – was apparently effective, and thus reasonable, in ending the anonymous harassment.  The Court also found no evidence that the plaintiff had been denied a promotion on account of her prior harassment complaints.

According to the Court’s decision, the plaintiff began transitioning about six months after being hired.  Following the plaintiff’s first series of medical procedures, a co-worker submitted complaints that the plaintiff had violated the employer’s dress code.  Although the plaintiff was informed about only the existence of the complaints, she was reassured that her attire was appropriate.  Following the plaintiff’s second series of medical procedures, her office name plate was defaced, which the City immediately rectified.  A few days later, the plaintiff received an anonymous gift bag with sex toys and a handwritten Bible verse about men wearing women’s clothing.  The employer conducted an immediate investigation, interviewed all nearby employees and required handwriting samples from each of them.  The perpetrator was never identified.  The investigation report recommended a few months later that a lock be installed on the plaintiff’s office door, but did not approve the plaintiff’s request for a security camera. 

Five months later, the plaintiff received a typed anonymous death threat.  The employer reported the incident to the police (which refused to investigate) and finally requested a lock for her office door, but refused the security camera, permission to keep her door shut during office hours or to permit her to work from home. A few employees were questioned, but not the individual who had previously filed the dress code complaints.  A few weeks later, another anonymous death threat was made. The City temporarily relocated the plaintiff’s office, installed locks and a security camera and again questioned a few employees, but not the employee who had previously made the dress code complaints.  At that point, the plaintiff suggested that the perpetrator might be that employee.  A few weeks after that, the employer learned that employee had inappropriately accessed the plaintiff’s Facebook page and discussed it with subordinates.  He was given a three-day suspension and his office was relocated onto a different floor from the plaintiff.  There were no further harassing incidents or threats made against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff then complained that her work was being subjected to more criticism, etc.  Her supervisor resigned and suggested someone else to be promoted instead of plaintiff.   The supervisor’s suggestion was not taken, but the decisionmaker promoted a different employee other than the plaintiff. 

The trial court and Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the employer on the harassment and retaliation claims.   It addressed the City’s response to each incident, rather than evaluating whether the initial response was adequate for the escalation.   While the plaintiff and the alleged perpetrator were both supervisors, neither had authority over the other; they were essentially co-workers.  Thus, the Court evaluated the matter as co-worker harassment.  When workplace harassment is

committed by a coworker, the employer is liable only “if it knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action . . . To find liability, the employer’s response to a coworker’s harassment must “manifest[] indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.” . . .  An employer’s response is generally adequate “if it is ‘reasonably calculated to end the harassment.’” . . . . “The appropriate corrective response will vary according to the severity and persistence of the alleged harassment.” . . . “Steps that would ‘establish a base level of reasonably appropriate corrective action’ may include promptly initiating an investigation[,] . . . ‘speaking with the specific individuals identified’” in the complaint, “following up with the complainant,” and “reporting the harassment to others in management.”

The employer immediately rectified the graffiti and conducted an immediate and thorough investigation following the gift bag incident.   The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s response was unreasonable (in that no perpetrator was ever identified) because in another case the employer had unreasonably delayed 10 days in conducting an investigation, already knew the identity of the alleged perpetrator and had failed to separate the perpetrator from the victim with an administrative suspension.

“The most significant immediate measure an employer can take in response to a sexual harassment complaint is to launch a prompt investigation to determine whether the complaint is justified.” . . . “By doing so, ‘the employer puts all employees on notice that it takes such allegations seriously and will not tolerate harassment in the workplace.’”

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s actions were unreasonable in delaying the installation of door locks or security cameras following the first two incidents:

“a harassment victim may not dictate an employer’s action against a co-worker.” . . . . While taking these measures would have been reasonable, failing to do so does not render the city “so indifferent to [Doe’s] concerns that it essentially permitted the harassment to continue.”

The employer’s response to the first death threat was also found to be reasonable as the police were contacted within three days and a request was made to install locks on the plaintiff’s office door.  While the plaintiff argued that it was unreasonable to not have then interviewed the employee who had previously complained about her attire, she admits that she never suspected him at this time either and there was no evidence tying him to any of the incidents.

Further, on this record, it was not unreasonable for the city to require Doe to return to the office. Nothing in the record indicates that Doe’s job was capable of remote performance. And the city took steps to address the harassment. Although these steps were ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the final act of harassment—the note on May 22—the city did not “exhibit[] indifference rising to an attitude of permissiveness that amounted to discrimination.”

Finally, the Court found that the City’s response to the final threat was reasonable even though by then the plaintiff had identified a possible suspect and neither the employer nor the police ever interviewed him about any of the death threats.  Rather, it was after this final threat that the City learned about the Facebook incident, suspended the suspect and relocated his office.  After that, the plaintiff suffered no more harassment.  The Court agreed that even inadvertent action by an employer can be effective in ending workplace harassment.

An inadequate investigation may render an employer’s response unreasonable. . . . But the city also temporarily relocated Doe at her request to a different floor until locks and security cameras could be installed. And the city moved Allen to another floor shortly thereafter, which both Doe and Allen assumed had something to do with the Facebook incident. See Harris v. Sodders, No. 07-4398, 2009 WL 331633, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009) (employer’s actions appropriate in part because “[e]ven though [employer] was unaware of the alleged harassment, his decision to transfer [the harasser] had the inadvertent effect of stopping the harassment”). Doe agrees that there have been no further incidents since May 22, 2017. If Allen was indeed responsible for these incidents, it appears that moving him, disciplining him, and installing locks and cameras effectively ended the harassment. . . . These efforts did not “manifest[] indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known,” so “we cannot say that the employer has itself committed an act of discrimination.”

Finally, the Court affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker based his decision in any way on the plaintiff’s protected conduct.  More than five months had passed since her last complaint and the promotion decision.   Her suspicions do no constitute evidence that the promotion decision was tainted or that her supervisor's criticisms were retaliatory.

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.

FCA Retaliation Claim Filed Five Days Too Late When Decision Was Made Prior to Written Notice

On Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on a False Claim Act retaliation claim on the grounds that the lawsuit had been filed five days too late.  El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-2669 (6^th Cir. 1/10/22).   The physician alleged that his employment agreement with the defendant hospital was not renewed because he had reported to the federal government false Medicare claims being filed by the hospital’s staff.  He had appealed the denial of his staff privileges under the medical bylaws.  The final step was made to a joint conference committee, which heard oral argument and, after he had left for the evening, voted to affirm the denial on September 22 and notified him in writing on September 27.  He filed suit against the hospital three years later on September 27.  The Hospital moved to dismiss on the grounds that his lawsuit was untimely.  The courts agreed, finding that the decision had been made and verbally announced on September 22 – more than three years before he filed suit.  According to the statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(3): “Such an action ‘may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred.”  Unlike other employment statutes, Congress did not create a discovery rule under the FCA retaliation provision based on when notice is provided.  “The statute simply adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief.”

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 Case You Missed It

 In the interest of catching up on interesting 2021 cases that I did not have time to previously summarize, here are a few interesting decisions:

·       A divided Supreme Court found that a California regulation giving union organizers the right to enter agricultural employers’ property for a few hours 120 days each year constituted a “per se” taking in violations of the Takings Clause which entitled the employer to compensation because the regulation appropriated the property owner’s right to exclude third parties. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S.Ct. 2063 (2021).   Property can be “taken” without it being permanent and the temporary nature goes only to the amount of compensation due for the taking.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the motion to dismiss granted to a state university on a claim by a professor who had received progressive discipline over a refusal to use the preferred pronouns of a student based on the professor's religious convictions.  Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6^th Cir), reh’ing denied en banc, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 20436 (6^th Cir. 2021).  While the Court recognized that public employees do not have unlimited free speech under the First Amendment, “[s]imply put, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship.”  The Court also found reasonable the professor’s suggested accommodation of not using pronouns or prefixes at all in reference to the student.  In addition, the Court indicated a “requirement that an employer not fire an employee for expressing a transgender identity is a far cry from what we have here—a requirement that a professor affirmatively change his speech to recognize a person’s transgender identity.”  

One final point worth considering: If professors lacked free-speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity. A university president could require a pacifist to declare that war is just, a civil rights icon to condemn the Freedom Riders, a believer to deny the existence of God, or a Soviet émigré to address his students as “comrades.” That cannot be. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe” such orthodoxy. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642. 

             . . . 

Remember, too, that the university’s position on titles and pronouns goes both ways. By defendants’ logic, a university could likewise prohibit professors from addressing university students by their preferred gender pronouns—no matter the professors’ own views. And it could even impose such a restriction while denying professors the ability to explain to students why they were doing so. But that’s simply not the case. Without sufficient justification, the state cannot wield its authority to categorically silence dissenting viewpoints.  

             .  . . 

   . . . .   titles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students. That’s not a matter of classroom management; that’s a matter of academic speech. 

          . . . . 

         . . . the use of gender-specific titles and pronouns has produced a passionate political and social debate. All this points to one conclusion: Pronouns can and do convey a powerful message implicating a sensitive topic of public concern. 

The Court also agreed that the professor had stated a violation of the Free Exercise clause when he was disciplined for not following the university's pronoun policy. 

Meriwether has plausibly alleged that Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy was not neutral for at least two reasons. First, officials at Shawnee State exhibited hostility to his religious beliefs. And second, irregularities in the university’s adjudication and investigation processes permit a plausible inference of non-neutrality.

         . . . 

    Finally, the university argues that Meriwether simply could have complied with the alternative it offered him: Don’t use any pronouns or sex-based terms at all. This offer, the university says, would not violate Meriwether’s religious beliefs. But such an offer has two problems. First, it would prohibit Meriwether from speaking in accordance with his belief that sex and gender are conclusively linked. See Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988) (explaining that the “difference between compelled speech and compelled silence . . . is without constitutional significance”). And second, such a system would be impossible to comply with, especially in a class heavy on discussion and debate. No “Mr.” or “Ms.” No “yes sir” or “no ma’am.” No “he said” or “she said.” And when Meriwether slipped up, which he inevitably would (especially after using these titles for twenty-five years), he could face discipline. Our rights do not hinge on such a precarious balance. 

The Sixth Circuit reversed the motion to dismiss granted to a union which was accused of retaliating against a member who had criticized union members to an employer for overbilling in an attempt to get himself hired.  Barger v. United Bhd of Carp. & Joiners, 3 F.4^th 254 (6^th Cir. 2021).  “Motive is not dispositive of the form-content-context inquiry, and if a union’s retaliation is imposed swiftly so as to prevent a union member’s ability to publicize his speech, then the lack of publicization cannot be used against the union member.”

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.