25-6071
6th Cir.Jul 22, 2026Background
- Loggins, a Black Costco employee in Memphis, had worked there over eight years and had previously sued Costco twice for discrimination. 1
- While his 2022 discrimination suit was pending, Loggins reported that Mannsbart had assaulted him and claimed the incident was on security video. 2
- Costco reviewed footage and concluded Mannsbart never touched Loggins, leading Spira to believe Loggins lied about the assault. 3
- Costco also learned that Loggins had secretly recorded coworker Angela Tuggle without her consent and that Tuggle demanded his termination. 4
- Costco decided Loggins committed three fireable offenses: the false assault report, the false police-report claim, and the unauthorized recording. 5
- The district court granted summary judgment to Costco, and Loggins appealed only his retaliation claims under Title VII and § 1981. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Loggins proved retaliation pretext 7 | Costco fired him because his lawyer produced Tuggle's recording in the pending case. | Costco fired him for independent misconduct, not protected activity. | No reasonable jury could find Costco's reasons pretextual. 8 |
| Whether Costco's reasons lacked factual basis 9 | He says Mannsbart really assaulted him and he did not lie about charges. | Video, admissions, and belief evidence support each reason. | Costco's reasons had factual bases. 10 |
| Whether comparator evidence showed insufficient cause 11 | Davis and Ramirez were treated more leniently for misconduct. | They were not similarly situated and their conduct was less serious. | The comparators did not rebut pretext. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 154 F.4th 375 (6th Cir. 2025) (de novo review of summary judgment and evidence viewed for nonmovant 13)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute exists when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant 14)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (Title VII and § 1981 both prohibit retaliation 15)
- Boxill v. O'Grady, 935 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2019) (Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims share the same elements 16)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial retaliation claims 17)
- Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2000) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to retaliation claims 18)
- Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall, LLC, 130 F.4th 542 (6th Cir. 2025) (plaintiff must establish prima facie case, employer's reasons, then pretext; multiple reasons must generally all be rebutted 19)
- Jackson v. Genesee Cnty. Rd. Comm'n, 999 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2021) (three ways to show pretext 20)
- Shreve v. Franklin County, 743 F.3d 126 (6th Cir. 2014) (contradictory witness accounts cannot create a triable issue against clear video evidence 21)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (clear video evidence can control over contrary testimony 22)
- Hieber v. Oakland County, 136 F.4th 308 (6th Cir. 2025) (plaintiff must rebut the employer's honest belief in misconduct allegations 23)
- Macy v. Hopkins Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2007) (comparator analysis focuses on comparable seriousness and relevant similarity 24)
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1976) (comparators need only engage in conduct of comparable seriousness 25)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (comparators must be similar in all relevant respects 26)
- Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc., 814 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2016) (comparator analysis focuses on severity of conduct 27)
- Robinson v. Quicken Loans, LLC, 2022 WL 4234072 (6th Cir. 2022) (disciplinary history can defeat comparator similarity 28)
- Marshall v. Rawlings Co., 854 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2017) (cat's paw theory requires biased subordinate influence on decisionmaker 29)