Dennis Willard v. Huntington Ford, Inc.
952 F.3d 795
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Dennis Willard, born 1953, was a long‑time, high‑producing new‑car salesperson at Huntington Ford who earned substantial commissions and awards.
- Supervisors (general manager Brad Schiller and sales managers Eric Calhoun and Tony Malouf) made repeated age‑related comments to Willard (e.g., “grandpa,” “dinosaur,” “over‑the‑hill,” comments about retirement and being “too old” to sit at the front desk).
- In December 2016 a physical/verbal altercation occurred between Willard and support‑staff member Kim Duley; management suspended Willard after the incident and later terminated him, citing (1) failure to return/call after the suspension, (2) the December 21 incident, and (3) prior disciplinary history.
- After termination, Willard’s desk was reassigned and, about a month later, Huntington Ford hired a younger new‑car salesperson (Scott Dewitt).
- Willard sued under the ADEA and Michigan ELCRA for age discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for the employer from the bench; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on ADEA/ELCRA claims was proper | Willard: termination motivated by age; employer manufactured suspension/absence reason and seized on the Duley incident as pretext | Huntington: fired for misconduct, failure to return/call after suspension, and prior discipline | Reversed: genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment improper |
| Prima facie case (replacement / disparate treatment) | Willard: replaced by younger hire (Dewitt) and received slower paperwork processing from Calhoun vs. younger salespeople | Huntington: no documentary proof Dewitt replaced Willard; hiring lag and customer base undermine replacement inference | Held: Willard produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find prima facie case |
| Pretext of proffered reasons (absence, December 21 incident, prior discipline) | Willard: disputed that suspension/return date was communicated or documented; incident was instigated by Duley; prior disciplines remote and limited | Huntington: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; employer’s account credible | Held: material factual disputes (credibility, documents vs testimony) allow a jury to find pretext; summary judgment denied |
| ELCRA causation standard | Willard: ELCRA requires substantial/motivating factor standard | Huntington: ELCRA should follow ADEA but‑for standard (Gross) | Court did not decide the standard because Willard met the more demanding but‑for causation anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (but‑for causation standard for ADEA claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and inferences for jury)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens of production)
- Blizzard v. Marion Technical College, 698 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2012) (employment discrimination standards; replacement inference)
- Geiger v. Tower Automotive, 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence in ADEA cases)
- Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2011) (burden‑shifting description and prima facie analysis)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (probative value of discriminatory comments)
- Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc., 505 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of direct evidence in discrimination claims)