Geraldine Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5343
6th Cir.2013Background
- Fuhr, awarded in 1999 to be the Hazel Park boys varsity coach, also continued as girls coach from 2001–2006; district court ordered instatement of Fuhr as boys coach in Fuhr I (2001/2004 appellate affirmation); Fuhr was removed as girls coach in June 2006 while remaining boys coach; multiple retaliatory-era actions alleged; Fuhr filed MDCR charges in 2007, then EEOC-related actions through 2009; district court granted summary judgment to Hazel Park in 2011, and Fuhr appealed limited to retaliation claims; standard of review on appeal is de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie retaliation established? | Fuhr argues protected activity (1999 suit, MDCR/EEOC filings) caused adverse acts. | Hazel Park contends there is no causal link and no adverse action proven. | No prima facie showing; insufficient causal connection and/or adverse action. |
| Causal connection between protected activity and acts? | Temporal proximity supports retaliation since acts followed protected activity. | Temporal proximity absent or insufficient; multi-year gap breaks causality. | Causal link not established; long gap undermines retaliation inference. |
| Adverse employment action established? | Removal as girls coach and related actions constitute adverse action. | Actions viewed as broader, non-discriminatory or non-actionable, not a distinct adverse action against Fuhr. | No clearly established adverse employment action under the prima facie framework. |
| Direct evidence of retaliation present? | Vogt’s comment about a “good old boys network” shows retaliatory motive. | Ambiguity about who is in the network and which acts are referenced; not direct evidence. | No direct evidence of retaliation; statements do not unambiguously prove motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court-1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for retaliation cases)
- Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence framework for retaliation claims)
- Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2009) (contextual timing in establishing causal connection)