Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 879

Background

Jared Hickle worked for AMC from 2004–2015 and served in the Ohio Army National Guard beginning in 2008; he routinely took approved military leave (monthly drills, annual training, six-month initial training, and a year-long deployment).
Hickle advanced to Kitchen Manager in 2013; his performance reviews were largely positive but documented recurring concerns about unprofessional communication and complaints from staff.
In April 2015 Hickle had heated altercations with two kitchen employees after discovering excessive take-home food; those two employees were suspended and terminated.
Hickle reported a purported “plot” to have him fired and, at the direction of his supervisor Adler, obtained statements from coworkers; AMC’s home-office investigator concluded Hickle both behaved unprofessionally and “impeded an investigation.”
AMC terminated Hickle effective May 8, 2015. Hickle sued under USERRA and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02 for wrongful termination and failure to promote (the latter concerning a 2008 promotion he was denied).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AMC violated USERRA by terminating Hickle because of his military service	Adler’s prior anti-military remarks and the inconsistency of terminating Hickle for “impeding an investigation” (when she told him to gather statements) show military status was a motivating factor	Termination was based on unprofessional behavior established by multiple statements and performance reviews; independent investigators made a reasonably informed decision	Grant summary judgment for AMC on USERRA termination claim (no liability)
Whether AMC violated USERRA by failing to promote Hickle in 2008 after he announced six-month military leave	Kalman ended the interview and denied promotion after Hickle said he would be gone for training, showing military status motivated denial	Kalman says Hickle was not under consideration due to maturity concerns; AMC later promoted Hickle in 2009	Deny summary judgment on USERRA failure-to-promote claim (genuine issue of fact)
Whether § 4112.02 (Ohio law) unlawful-termination claim survives under same framework as USERRA	§ 4112.02 claim parallels USERRA and thus should survive if USERRA claim does	Argues same burden-shifting applies; court should dismiss if USERRA claim fails	Grant summary judgment for AMC on Ohio wrongful-termination claim (follows USERRA result)
Whether § 4112.02 failure-to-promote claim is timely and viable	Substantively merits like USERRA failure-to-promote	§ 4112.02 has a six-year statute of limitations; 2008 promotion claim accrued then and suit filed in 2015	Grant summary judgment for AMC on Ohio failure-to-promote claim (time-barred)

Key Cases Cited

Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741 (6th Cir.) (USERRA anti-discrimination standard and timing inference)
Hance v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 571 F.3d 511 (6th Cir.) (burden-shifting and circumstantial categories for USERRA claims)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (U.S.) ("cat’s paw" liability where biased supervisor’s actions proximately cause adverse action)
Escher v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, 627 F.3d 1020 (6th Cir.) ("modified honest belief" rule for employer’s reliance on investigation facts)
Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir.) (employer must reasonably rely on particularized facts)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard; evidence must permit jury verdict)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (movant’s initial summary judgment burden)