Eric Kuhn v. Washtenaw County
709 F.3d 612
6th Cir.2013Background
- Kuhn, a Washtenaw County Deputy, stopped Marianne Joseph in Oct 2008; Joseph falsely alleged a rape by Kuhn during the stop.
- An internal Sheriff’s Office investigation was opened over the allegation, and it was closed in Jan 2009.
- Kuhn went on stress-related medical leave beginning Feb 2009, totaling about seven months, and was terminated Jan 2010.
- Kuhn filed suit against Washtenaw County and Lt. Anuszkiewicz for due process, WPA, and retaliation; he also alleged race discrimination and harassment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the ELCRA, and sued Anuszkiewicz for tortious interference.
- The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims; Kuhn appeals, challenging pretermination notice, the reasons for discharge, post-termination procedures, and discrimination claims.
- Kuhn’s post-leave communications and the December 2009 termination notice framed the pretermination and post-termination process issue for the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Kuhn given due process before termination? | Kuhn contends pretermination process was deficient. | County provided adequate pretermination notice and opportunity to respond. | Yes; pretermination notice and opportunity to respond were constitutionally adequate. |
| Were Kuhn’s race-discrimination claims viable given the internal investigation? | Internal investigation was an adverse action showing discrimination. | Internal investigation is not an adverse employment action; no direct or prima facie case shown. | Kuhn failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. |
| Did temporal proximity establish retaliation under Title VII/ELCRA? | Protected activity (August–September 2009) causally linked to January 2010 termination. | Temporal proximity alone insufficient; intervening legitimate reasons existed. | No; no causal connection shown beyond temporal proximity. |
| Did Kuhn state a viable WPA retaliation claim? | Kuhn engaged in protected activity and was discharged soon after. | Termination due to exhaustion of leave and staffing needs; no causal link shown. | No; no prima facie case under WPA. |
| Was Kuhn’s hostile-work-environment claim exhausted in the EEOC charge? | EEOC charge could reasonably grow to include hostile environment. | Charge limited to discrete acts; hostile environment not alleged. | Hostile-environment claim not exhausted and not stated; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980 F.2d 399 (6th Cir. 1992) (pretermination notice sufficiency; notice can suffice for due process)
- Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (S. Ct. 1985) (pretermination hearing required with notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Duchesne v. Williams, 849 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir. 1988) (post-termination hearing can ferret out pretext; supports post-termination process adequacy)
- Peltier v. United States, 388 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal investigation not automatically adverse action; bad faith not required here)
- Wasek v. Arrow Energy Servs., Inc., 682 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2012) (causation in retaliation requires more than temporal proximity)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (S. Ct. 1993) (hostile work environment standard; severe or pervasive not shown here)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (S. Ct. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Kuhn v. Washtenaw Cnty., 2012 WL 1229890 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (district court summary judgment reasoning cited by Sixth Circuit)