John George v. Youngstown State Univ.
966 F.3d 446
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- John George, a former YSU tenure-track professor, sued YSU for discrimination after a 2006 denial of tenure; he settled in 2008 and was reinstated on term contracts that YSU guaranteed through 2011–12 and agreed to provide health insurance until 2015.
- YSU renewed George’s contracts through Spring 2015; on April 20, 2015—two weeks after his Medicare eligibility and after the settlement obligations ended—YSU declined to renew his term contract and he lost salary and benefits.
- George applied for several other YSU positions after his nonrenewal: Director of Dual Enrollment (YSU hired Julie Seitz), Assistant Director of Research Services (YSU hired Ashley Riggleman), and a Lecturer posting that YSU later abandoned; George alleges age discrimination and retaliation for his prior lawsuit and EEOC charge.
- Relevant evidence for George: Abraham (administrator) discussed that George’s reinstatement years were "finished" and specifically mentioned George when discussing cuts; shifting explanations from administrators about who decided the termination; alleged irregularities and preselection in the hiring processes for other positions.
- District court granted summary judgment to YSU on all claims (finding gaps in causation and no pretext), and dismissed the lecturer claim for failure to exhaust; defendants had earlier agreed to waive exhaustion for the lecturer claim.
- Sixth Circuit majority reversed summary judgment on the termination and failure-to-hire claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact on causation and pretext and concluding the exhaustion defense had been waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliatory termination — causation | George: termination two weeks after settlement benefits ended, plus Abraham’s comments and differential treatment, show causal link to 2006 suit/retaliation | YSU: long time (2006→2015) severs causation; any firing was for budgetary reasons | Reversed: jury could find causation given settlement-driven timing plus other evidence (no categorical bar from elapsed time) |
| Retaliatory termination — pretext | George: shifting explanations, singling out, and departmental facts undermine budget rationale | YSU: budget shortfall and return of a professor justified cutting a term line | Reversed: genuine dispute on whether YSU’s reasons were pretext for targeting George specifically |
| Failure-to-hire — Director of Dual Enrollment (ADEA) | George: credentials were equivalent to required master’s in math; evidence of preselection and changed posting undermines employer’s stated qualification-based reason | YSU: George lacked the advertised master’s in mathematics and was therefore unqualified | Reversed: juror could find equivalency and infer pretext from hiring irregularities and altered posting |
| Lecturer position — administrative exhaustion & merits | George: defendants expressly waived exhaustion and asked court to decide merits; also alleges search was abandoned due to retaliation | YSU: plaintiff failed to exhaust EEOC remedies; alternatively the position was never filled so no failure-to-hire | Reversed: waiver/enforcement error — defendants forfeited exhaustion defense; factual dispute about whether position remained open prevents summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (qualification prong may be met by equivalent credentials)
- Fort Bend County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (administrative exhaustion is a claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
- Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007) (timing and context can affect inference of causation in reinstatement/retaliation settings)