Major Smith, III v. City of Toledo, Ohio
13 F.4th 508
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Smith was a firefighter recruit at the Toledo Fire and Rescue Training Academy; the Academy requires recruits to pass a vertical-ventilation practical test on a real roof (cut a 4x4 hole within 10 minutes) and normally permits three attempts.
- Smith failed the March test (three attempts) with evaluators documenting unsafe chainsaw handling and cutting toward his body; he was given his score sheet and remedial materials.
- Despite Academy policy, Smith was allowed two additional rounds of three attempts (May and June) after the City sought greater diversity and community concerns arose; he received individualized instruction before May and June tests but failed all nine attempts total.
- Evaluators repeatedly noted safety problems (hitting ladder, stalled chainsaw, cutting toward his body); Battalion Chief Hitt observed June testing and opined the training/testing was inadequate and Smith was unsafe.
- Smith sued the City, mayor, fire chiefs, and department under Title VII, § 1981, Ohio anti-discrimination law, § 1983 (reputation/liberty), §§ 1985/1986 (conspiracy), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied further discovery.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment: Smith failed to identify a similarly situated comparator or evidence that the test/result was a pretext for race discrimination; other claims (conspiracy, § 1983, IIED) and discovery denial were also rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, Ohio law) — prima facie / pretext | Smith: Academy "manufactured" failures via unequal/inadequate training and materially harder tests (May/June) targeted at him because of race | City: Smith was unqualified, failed the same objective testing all recruits faced; no similarly situated non‑protected comparator and no evidence of discriminatory motive | Affirmed: Smith failed to show similarly situated comparator or that failure was a pretext for racial discrimination |
| Conspiracy claims (§§ 1985, 1986) | Smith: Officials conspired to deprive him equal protection via discriminatory dismissal | Defendants: Underlying discrimination claims fail, so no conspiracy to deprive rights exists | Affirmed dismissal as derivative of failed discrimination claims |
| § 1983 reputational/liberty interest | Smith: Public statements that he failed to meet standards sullied his good name and deprived liberty/property interest | Defendants: Statements attributed only inadequate performance; reputation alone not constitutionally protected under Paul/Cutshall | Affirmed dismissal: reputation claims not constitutionally actionable here |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Ohio law) | Smith: Defendants intentionally destroyed his lifelong dream and public reputation causing serious emotional harm | Defendants: Conduct not extreme/outrageous and causation lacking given lawful dismissal for failure to pass | Affirmed dismissal: elements not met |
| Request for additional discovery | Smith: Need discovery on state vs. Academy testing requirements to show pretext and disparate requirement | City: Whether rooftop test is a state requirement is irrelevant because all recruits faced Academy rooftop test | Affirmed denial: additional discovery would not change discrimination analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for proving discriminatory motive)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for granting summary judgment and evaluating genuine disputes)
- Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc., 814 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2016) (elements for prima facie discrimination in this circuit)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (requirement that comparators be similar in all relevant respects)
- O’Donnell v. City of Cleveland, 838 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2016) (context on proving discrimination and evaluating circumstantial evidence)
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (limitations of nondecisionmaker statements in proving pretext)
- Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 1999) (reputation alone is not a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (defamation by government actor does not alone create a constitutional deprivation)
- Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs insufficient to prove discrimination)
- Fisher v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 951 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing denial of additional discovery)