Love v. Columbus, 2021 Ohio 3494

Plaintiff Carlton Love, an African-American pipeline locator for the City of Columbus, was placed on a 3-year "last chance" agreement in 2008 after admitting multiple work-rule violations involving failure to properly mark utility lines.
In 2010 Love faced additional complaints and five incidents of mismarked or incompletely marked lines; a labor hearing officer found him guilty of dishonesty, insubordination, and neglect of duty and ordered termination.
The Union pursued a Step 2 grievance; the hearing officer upheld termination and the Union declined further appeals.
Love sued the city and director Tatyana Arsh for racial discrimination and retaliation; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and this court previously remanded on the prima facie issue.
On remand the trial court assumed Love had made a prima facie case and considered only pretext; it granted summary judgment again, finding Love failed to show the City’s nondiscriminatory reason (violation of the last chance agreement / failure to mark lines) was a pretext for race discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Love produced sufficient comparator evidence to show pretext	Love: white line operators engaged in similar misconduct but were not disciplined; his deposition testimony establishes disparate treatment	City: termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (work-rule violations and breach of last chance agreement); Love’s allegations are vague, uncorroborated, and conjectural	Court: Rejected — Love’s self-serving, non-specific testimony without names, dates, or other record evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of pretext
Whether employer’s explanations for termination were inconsistent (shifting justifications)	Love: argues City/Arsh gave inconsistent accounts (e.g., one admission that failure to mark did not cause damage vs. testimony that a water line was damaged by his conduct)	City: reasons are consistent—each explanation centers on Love’s failure to properly mark utility lines; affidavits and disciplinary records show complaints and alleged damage	Court: Rejected — purported differences are not material inconsistencies; all reasons "revolve around a single idea" and do not show pretext

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer must articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove discrimination)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext requires showing the employer's reason is false and discrimination was the actual motive)
Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (ways to show pretext: reason had no basis in fact, was not the actual reason, or was insufficient to explain the action)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (multiple stated reasons that "revolve around a single idea" are not necessarily inconsistent and do not prove pretext)