Nancy Roschival v. Hurley Med. Center
695 F. App'x 923
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nancy Roschival, a white, non-union HR employee at Hurley Medical Center (HMC), processed workers’ compensation claims as a Service Center Advisor/HRC1; Jamal Dozier, an African-American, was HRC and performed different HR duties (orientation).
- HMC closed its Employee Health Office (EHO) and outsourced its functions; HMC laid off Roschival effective August 2014 via a notice signed by CEO Melany Gavulic following HR generalist Deidra Roriex’s recommendation.
- HMC’s RIF (reduction-in-force) handbook governs non‑union layoffs by classification and seniority; the parties disputed whether HRC1 and HRC were the same ‘‘classification’’ or a job series that would have allowed Roschival to bump Dozier.
- Roschival alleged reverse racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection) — that HMC bypassed RIF rules to retain Dozier (African‑American) and lay off her because she is white.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Gavulic on the § 1983 claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and dismissed them without prejudice; the Sixth Circuit assumed a prima facie case but affirmed summary judgment, holding Roschival failed to show pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roschival made out a prima facie reverse‑discrimination/RIF claim | Roschival: she was white, laid off, qualified, and a similarly situated non‑white (Dozier) was retained; background evidence suggests preference for African‑American retention | Gavulic: no direct evidence of race; layoff followed business decision to eliminate EHO and HR’s application of RIF rules | Court assumed prima facie case for argument’s sake but resolved case on pretext grounds |
| Whether defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for layoff | Roschival: HMC misapplied RIF policy and should have allowed her to bump Dozier | Gavulic: business decision to close EHO eliminated Roschival’s work; Gavulic relied on Roriex’s (HR) determination that Roschival’s classification was unique | Held: Defendants met burden with legitimate business reason (EHO closure and HR recommendation) |
| Whether the proffered reason was pretext for racial discrimination | Roschival: misapplication of RIF and testimony about an alleged preference to retain African‑American employees shows pretext | Gavulic: even misapplication doesn’t show racial motive; decision tied to EHO closure and different job duties; plaintiff had no knowledge of racial animus | Held: Plaintiff failed to show pretext under Davis factors or by showing decision unreasonable in a way that reveals racial motive |
| Whether deviation from RIF procedures alone establishes pretext | Roschival: deviation supports inference of discriminatory motive to spare Dozier | Gavulic: deviation (if any) does not establish race‑based motive given undisputed differences in duties and no direct evidence of racial animus | Held: Deviation alone insufficient here; record lacks evidence connecting deviation to racial discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination; burdens under McDonnell Douglas)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard and inferences)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
- Davis v. Cintas Corp., 717 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2013) (test for proving pretext: reasons had no basis in fact, did not actually motivate action, or were insufficient)
- Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, 581 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2009) (evidence challenging reasonableness of decision may show pretext)
- Skalka v. Fernald Envtl. Restoration Mgmt. Corp., 178 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1999) (deviation from normal procedures can be one factor supporting inference of pretext)