Donald Bass v. Wendy's of Downtown, Inc.
526 F. App'x 599
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bass, a Wendy's employee until Sep 2010, underwent a polygraph in 2007 after a missing deposit; he failed while a co-worker passed.
- Bass sought two promotions in Feb 2010 but was not considered; soon after, a female coworker accused him of inappropriate touching, leading to resignation.
- Wendy’s disclosed Bass’s polygraph failure in its OCRC response, stating the reason for not promoting Bass was his employment history, including 22 corrective notices.
- Bass filed a federal suit alleging EPPA violations: unlawful disclosure (§2008) and discriminatory promotion decision based on polygraph results ( §2002(3)(B)); district court granted summary judgment for Wendy’s.
- District court held Bass failed to prove damages for disclosure and applied Price Waterhouse mixed-motive framework to promote claim, granting summary judgment for Wendy’s on both claims on appeal.
- This Court reviews summary judgment de novo and applies a non-prisoner pro se standard, but provides no special treatment to Bass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of polygraph results violated EPPA §2008 damages. | Bass did suffer damages from disclosure. | Wendy’s disclosure caused no proven damages. | affirmed summary judgment for Wendy’s on disclosure claim. |
| Whether Wendy’s reliance on polygraph in not promoting Bass was unlawful under EPPA §2002(3)(B). | Polygraph was a motivating factor in not promoting Bass. | Polygraph was one of many factors; Bass would not have been promoted anyway. | affirmed summary judgment; Price Waterhouse framework applied; Bass failed to show promotion would have occurred without polygraph. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (established mixed-motive framework in discrimination cases)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (limits application of Price Waterhouse to certain statutes)
- Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012) (restricts cross-statute application of causation standards)
- Worden v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 549 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008) (discusses appropriate analysis for EPPA §2002(3)(B) claims)
- Tysinger v. Police Dept. of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for summary judgment review in this circuit)
- Brock v. Henershott, 840 F.2d 339 (6th Cir. 1988) (pro se litigants and notice requirements for summary judgment)