Moien Louzon v. Ford Motor Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11156
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Louzon, Ford product engineer, took approved leave to Gaza; border closures delayed his return.
- Ford extended leave initially, but evacuation in August 2007 occurred after extension expired; Louzon was terminated during absence.
- Louzon filed 2009 claims for age and national-origin discrimination and retaliation under ADEA, ELCRA, and Title VII.
- District court denied summary judgment after in-limine, then granted Ford summary judgment based on exclusion of comparator evidence.
- Louzon contends district court improperly resolved non-evidentiary issues in limine and used an incorrect standard for similarly situated comparators.
- This court reverses the in-limine ruling on comparators, vacates the summary-judgment grant on age/national-origin claims, and remands; grants partial affirmance of discovery rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether comparators can be used without same supervisor | Louzon argues same-supervisor rule is not required. | Ford argues comparators must share supervisor and be similarly situated. | District court erred; must consider independent relevancy of comparators. |
| Whether district court improperly resolved non-evidentiary matters via limine | Limine improperly resolved factual issues and prejudiced discovery. | Limine appropriately screened evidence. | Court reverses limine ruling on comparators and remands for proper proceedings. |
| Whether district court’s approach to the automatic termination policy was correct | Policy language may not support automatic termination without proper factual findings. | Policy language implies automatic termination when leave not renewed. | District court erred; need factual resolution on termination mechanics. |
| Whether discovery rulings denied Louzon access to other comparators were proper | Louzon was entitled to broader discovery on terminated engineers. | Discovery was properly limited to seven engineers. | Remanded for reconsideration under correct legal standard; partial affirmation of depictions. |
| Whether summary judgment on age and national-origin claims was proper | With proper comparator evidence, prima facie case may be shown. | Without comparators evidence, claims fail as a matter of law. | Vacated; remand for proceedings consistent with updated evidentiary framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (independent determination of relevant employment-status factors)
- Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2012) (same-supervisor requirement not required in all contexts)
- Mitchell v. Vanderbilt Univ., 389 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2004) (elements of prima facie case; treatment of similarly situated outside protected class)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (summary judgment is not a substitute for limine in civil cases)
- Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (limine cannot convert into summary judgment; requires full development)
- Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1990) (limine should not wholesale dispose of theories or defenses)
- Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., 100 F.3d 1353 (7th Cir. 1996) (evidence vs. sufficiency; limine misuse)