Jennifer Frazier v. Richland Public Health, 685 F. App'x 443

Background

Jennifer Frazier, a female Sanitarian III at Richland Public Health (RPH) and former AFSCME Local 3469 president, reported female employees’ complaints that a camera in a male manager’s office was aimed at the women’s restroom; she coauthored a June 28, 2013 union letter about the camera.
On July 11, 2013, Health Commissioner Stanley Saalman confronted and physically shoved Frazier into the women’s restroom and blocked her exit; she filed an internal incident report and contacted the sheriff.
Frazier took FMLA leave (July–Sept 2013) for depression/anxiety after related workplace stress; while she was on leave, her supervisory mosquito-control duties (which she had performed for nine years) were reassigned to a male coworker, Weston Engelbach.
Upon return, Frazier’s mosquito-control duties were greatly diminished in 2014 and eliminated in 2015; she was reassigned to food inspections and required to take refresher courses.
Frazier filed an EEOC charge (Feb 2014) alleging sex discrimination and retaliation based on (a) participating in an earlier harassment investigation, (b) reporting Saalman’s assault internally and to the sheriff, and (c) filing the EEOC charge; district court granted summary judgment to RPH on retaliation; Sixth Circuit reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Frazier’s internal reports (including incident report and complaint about camera/assault) were protected activity under Title VII	Frazier argues her internal reporting of sex-based complaints and the Saalman incident constituted opposition to sex-based harassment and thus protected activity	RPH argued pre-EEOC internal reports did not qualify as protected activity because they did not expressly allege discrimination	Court held the internal reports could be protected activity when they reasonably convey opposition to sex-based practices; genuine dispute existed on this element
Whether RPH knew of the protected activity	Frazier: supervisors (Work, Grega) knew; she filed incident report and was advised to call sheriff	RPH did not dispute knowledge of the incident	Court: Knowledge established (Work and HR knew)
Whether reassignment/removal of mosquito-control duties constituted an adverse employment action for retaliation purposes	Frazier: removal/reshuffling of long-held supervisory duties to a male and assignment to less-preferred tasks would deter a reasonable employee from complaining	RPH: No loss of pay or formal demotion, so not materially adverse	Court: Reassignment of duties that make the job less desirable can be materially adverse; factual dispute remained whether these changes would dissuade a reasonable worker
Whether temporal and circumstantial evidence established causation between protected activity and reassignment	Frazier: reassignment occurred within weeks of her protected reports; statements by managers expressing desire to “get rid of” her and to change her duties until she quit	RPH: defended action as nondiscriminatory personnel decision (district court did not reach pretext)	Court: Close temporal proximity and evidence of hostile remarks created a genuine issue of causal connection at prima facie stage; remanded to address pretext

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard: material adversity judged by reasonable-employee objective)
Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. summary-judgment and Title VII retaliation principles)