Makini Jackson v. Genesee Cnty. Road Comm'n
999 F.3d 333
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Makini Jackson, an African American, was hired as Genesee County Road Commission (GCRC) Director of Human Resources/EEO Officer in March 2016.
- Multiple internal complaints of racial discrimination (notably by Anthony Branch against John Bennett) were pending when Jackson began; she investigated and concluded Bennett discriminated against Branch, arranged leave, and negotiated a severance.
- Jackson revised EEOP (Equal Employment Opportunity Plan) procedures to centralize communications and enforce vendor compliance after finding expired or incomplete vendor EEOPs and alleged pre‑approval contact between directors and vendors.
- Numerous GCRC directors, vendors, outside counsel, and union reps complained about Jackson’s communication style; Daly (her supervisor) received complaints and fired her in October 2016 without giving a specific reason.
- Jackson filed an EEOC charge alleging retaliation (Title VII and Michigan ELCRA) and later sued; the district court granted summary judgment for GCRC. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding disputed issues of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson’s investigations and EEOP enforcement constitute protected “opposition” activity under Title VII | Jackson: investigating coworker complaints (Branch) and enforcing EEOPs opposed unlawful practices and is protected, even if within HR duties | GCRC: conduct was part of her job; FLSA "manager" rule should bar protection for employer‑directed HR duties | Held: Opposition clause protects such conduct; job duties do not bar protection (court declined to extend FLSA manager rule) |
| Whether Jackson’s actions trigger ELCRA’s participation clause | Jackson: ELCRA participation covers her involvement in internal matters and EEO enforcement | GCRC: participation clause requires involvement in a formal charge or investigation; Jackson’s conduct was informal | Held: Participation clause not met—ELCRA participation protects formal charge/investigation involvement, so Jackson cannot rely on that clause |
| Whether GCRC had knowledge of the protected activity | Jackson: GCRC knew (supervisor Daly and others were aware) | GCRC: (raised for first time on appeal) disputes knowledge | Held: GCRC waived the knowledge challenge by not raising it below; record supports that GCRC knew |
| Causation / pretext (Title VII retaliation and wrongful‑termination/public‑policy claim) | Jackson: temporal proximity and overlap between those she investigated/regulated and complainants establish but‑for causation; proffered reasons (communication style) are pretextual | GCRC: fired for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons — her abrasive, inflexible communication and resulting acrimony | Held: Genuine factual dispute exists as to causation and pretext; summary judgment improper—case for jury (also dispositive for the public‑policy claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 555 U.S. 271 (opposition activity includes communicating belief of discrimination to employer)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation claims require but‑for causation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and drawing inferences)
- Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.) (employee’s contractual duty to oppose discrimination does not bar retaliation claim)
- Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Techs., Inc., 793 F.3d 634 (6th Cir.) (limits on what constitutes protected opposition activity)
- Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (6th Cir.) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence of retaliation)
- Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir.) (elements of prima facie retaliation claim)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.) (methods for proving pretext)
- El‑Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 504 Mich. 152 (Mich.) (ELCRA retaliation analysis)