Beard v. AAA of Michigan, 593 F. App'x 447

Beard, African-American male, began as a life insurance sales agent for Auto Club and was promoted to Life Sales Manager in April 2008.
As manager, Beard oversaw 20–30 agents and faced multiple complaints about a dictatorial, belittling leadership style and inappropriate seminar conduct.
Complaints were memorialized in a 2009 memorandum and 2009–2010 reviews urging leadership improvements and noting ongoing concerns.
After Beard accused Auto Club of discrimination in July 2010, the company intensified scrutiny and ultimately suspended and terminated him in January 2011 after further complaints.
Beard filed suit on February 17, 2012 in district court asserting Title VII discrimination and retaliation and ELCRA claims; Auto Club moved for directed verdict on retaliation claims, which the district court granted; the jury found against Beard on discrimination claims and a final judgment was entered February 14, 2014.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court on all issues and rejected Beard’s arguments concerning causation, jury instructions, evidence, and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was but-for causation for Title VII retaliation	Beard argued discrimination complaints caused termination via heightened scrutiny.	Auto Club contends termination was due to preexisting conduct independent of protected activity.	No; but-for causation not shown; district court affirmed.
Whether ELCRA retaliation uses but-for causation	Beard argues ELCRA should not use Title VII causation standard.	Auto Club maintains ELCRA parallels Title VII causation.	But-for standard applied; district court affirmed.
Whether the jury instruction required intentional discrimination for Title VII claim	Beard contends intention need not be shown for discrimination.	Auto Club argues intentional discrimination is required for disparate-treatment claims.	Instruction proper; intentional discrimination required for disparate-treatment claim.
Whether the district court erred in denying Beard's proposed discriminatory-intent/animus instructions	Beard sought McDonnell Douglas-based guidance on pretext and animus.	Court properly refused; standard instructions were clearer.	No abuse of discretion; proposed instructions rejected.
Admission of Beard's Prudential records as impeachment evidence	Records undisclosed and possibly inadmissible under Rule 404(b).	Records admissible for impeachment and cross-examination credibility.	Admissible for impeachment; not Rule 404(b) evidence; proper under circumstances.

Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 529 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2008) (defines prima facie retaliation elements and causation standard)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (S. Ct. 2013) (but-for causation standard in retaliation claims)
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (S. Ct. 2009) (requires discriminatory intent for disparate-treatment claims)
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1971) (disparate-impact vs. disparate-treatment distinctions; requires proof of business necessity and discriminatory impact)
Brown v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 338 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2003) (McDonnell Douglas framework normally not instructed to jury)
Chrisner v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., 645 F.2d 1251 (6th Cir. 1981) (notes evidentiary standards for disparate-treatment claims)
In re Lewis, 845 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. 1988) (guidance on jury instructions under McDonnell Douglas framework)
O’Neill v. Kiledjian, 511 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1975) (directed-verdict standard review;)