150 F.4th 751
6th Cir.2025Background
- Pemberton worked at Bell’s Brewery from 2002, became senior brewer in 2012, and suffered a work-related back injury in December 2018 that produced medical lifting/standing restrictions through November 2019.
- Bell’s accommodated him with light-duty work, transitional paid work, and leave when light duty ran out; he was cleared for full duties in November 2019.
- In May–June 2021 Bell’s investigated complaints that Pemberton made disturbing comments to EE‑1 (a veteran) and alleged inappropriate remarks toward others; Bell’s suspended him, then offered a “last chance agreement” (demotion and training) or a severance package; Pemberton declined the severance and did not return to work.
- Pemberton filed an EEOC Inquiry Questionnaire (June 21, 2021) and later filed an EEOC Charge (March 22–23, 2022) alleging disability and age discrimination and retaliation; he received a right‑to‑sue letter and sued in August 2022.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Bell’s, finding Pemberton failed to exhaust/timely pursue a failure‑to‑accommodate ADA claim and failed to show causation/pretext for his ADA, PWDCRA, ELCRA, and Title VII claims; the Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pemberton exhausted and timely filed an ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim via his EEOC filings | The Questionnaire plus the later Charge together alerted the EEOC and Bell’s to his accommodation grievance and preserved timeliness | The Questionnaire explicitly disclaimed it was not a charge, was unverified and nonspecific; the Charge did not allege failure‑to‑accommodate and—if it had—was untimely | Questionnaire not an EEOC charge; failure‑to‑accommodate not exhausted and, in any event, untimely → claim dismissed |
| Whether Pemberton established ADA retaliation/discrimination (prima facie and pretext) | He engaged in protected activity (witnessing sexual‑assault matters and complaining about supervisor’s disability‑related conduct) and was suspended/demoted in retaliation/discrimination | The activities cited are not ADA‑protected (witnessing harassment); prior complaints were remote in time; Bell’s suspension/discipline was for inappropriate conduct toward EE‑1 (legitimate non‑discriminatory reason) | Plaintiff failed to show a causal connection or pretext; ADA retaliation and discrimination claims fail |
| Whether Bell’s violated Michigan PWDCRA by failing to accommodate (creating new role/continuing light duty) | Bell’s refused to create a new position/longer light‑duty opportunities for Pemberton after August 2019 | Michigan law does not require employers to modify essential job duties or create new positions; Bell’s provided temporary accommodations and leave and Pemberton returned to full duty by Nov. 2019 | Pemberton cannot show he was able to perform essential duties with reasonable accommodation; PWDCRA accommodation claim fails |
| Whether age discrimination (ELCRA) or Title VII claims survive (and procedural issues on appeal) | Age motivated pass‑overs, demotion, and severance offer; Title VII claims parallel other claims | Bell’s had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring/discipline; plaintiff offered no evidence of pretext; many appellate challenges were forfeited | No evidence of pretext for ELCRA; Title VII and motion‑to‑reconsider challenges forfeited on appeal → summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (ADA enforcement uses Title VII procedures)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (intake/questionnaire can sometimes constitute a charge if it requests EEOC action)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000) (300‑day filing rule for EEOC charges)
- Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (pre‑charge forms may be charges if verified, specific, and request EEOC relief)
- Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits on when facts in a charge may reasonably grow into different claims)
- Strouss v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 250 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion and reasonably‑related doctrine)
- Hedrick v. W. Rsrv. Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)