Curtis Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank, 785 F.3d 230

Background

Curtis Wheat, an African-American Fifth Third Bank employee, was involved in a verbal/physical workplace altercation with co-worker Brad Hatfield on Feb. 19, 2010; both were sent home that day.
Wheat was told after an internal investigation that he was terminated for violating the bank’s workplace-violence and anti-harassment policies and core values; Hatfield initially received only a write-up and returned to work.
Wheat filed an EEOC charge; the EEOC found reasonable cause and issued a right-to-sue letter. After further investigation, the bank later terminated Hatfield as well.
Wheat sued under Title VII and the Ohio Civil Rights Act alleging racial discrimination in his termination.
The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s report, granted the bank summary judgment, finding Wheat failed to show a prima facie case (not similarly situated comparator) and failed to show pretext.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that (viewing all facts and inferences for Wheat) genuine disputes of material fact exist on comparator status and pretext, requiring resolution by a jury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wheat established a prima facie Title VII disparate-treatment case	Wheat: he is protected, qualified, suffered adverse action, and was treated less favorably than similarly situated non‑Black co‑worker Hatfield	Fifth Third: Wheat and Hatfield were not similarly situated (different duties; Wheat was aggressor; Wheat was rude in interview)	Court: Reversed — Wheat met the low prima facie burden; genuine disputes exist about similarity and who was aggressor
Whether the bank articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination	Wheat: reasons given (refusal to cooperate, threats, violence risk) were pretextual	Fifth Third: termination based on refusal to cooperate, threatening statements, and safety concerns	Court: Bank did articulate reasons (production burden met) but that does not end inquiry
Whether the bank’s stated reasons were pretext for discrimination	Wheat: inconsistencies and facts (Hatfield’s later termination, disputes over what was said, differing interviews) create triable issues of pretext	Fifth Third: actions were nonracial and based on conduct and safety concerns	Held: Reversed — Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise genuine disputes as to whether reasons had basis in fact, actually motivated decision, or were insufficient; jury should decide
Proper standard on summary judgment in discrimination cases	Wheat: at summary stage courts must view all evidence and inferences in non‑movant’s favor and may find pretext issues sufficient to survive	Fifth Third: emphasized cases limiting inference from falsity alone	Held: Court reaffirmed burden‑shifting framework and that showing falsity or disputes over employer’s explanation can permit an inference of discrimination at summary judgment when viewed in plaintiff’s favor

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination claims)
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (defendant’s production burden and continuing plaintiff burden)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff may rely on evidence that employer’s reasons are false to infer discrimination)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (production vs. persuasion burdens; relevance to pretext analysis)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (what it means to be similarly situated)
Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (three ways to show pretext)
Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (standard for whether falsity supports an inference at summary judgment)
Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (elements of prima facie discrimination case)
Dodd v. Donahoe, 715 F.3d 151 (standard of review for summary judgment)