Redlin v. Grosse Pointe Pub. Sch. Sys.
921 F.3d 599
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- Redlin was a high-school assistant principal at Grosse Pointe South (hired 2012). In 2014–15 she complained informally to Deputy Superintendent Jon Dean about comments/conduct by principal Moussa Hamka she perceived as gender-based harassment. Dean investigated informally and found no harassment; Redlin did not pursue a formal complaint.
- Two incidents precipitated discipline: (1) Redlin warned a teacher (C.M.) about another assistant principal's (Flint’s) evaluation; (2) Redlin and others knew, but did not report, a rumor concerning Hamka and a teacher (L.L.). Dean told Redlin she would be disciplined but held discipline in abeyance while she sought another job.
- Redlin received a "minimally effective" evaluation for 2014–2015, was placed on an Individualized Development Plan (IDP), denied a rolling two-year contract and merit pay, and was later transferred to a middle school. Flint engaged in similar misconduct (warning a coworker, lying to Dean, and knowledge of the L.L. rumor) but received lighter discipline and an "effective" evaluation.
- Redlin took FMLA leave from Nov 17, 2015 to Mar 14, 2016. Upon return there was some confusion about whether she would receive an interim or full evaluation; she ultimately received an "effective" rating and two-year contract.
- Procedural posture: Redlin filed EEOC charge and then suit alleging Title VII and Michigan Elliott-Larsen Act (ELCRA) sex discrimination and retaliation, and FMLA retaliation. District court granted summary judgment to the school district; Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED as to FMLA claim but REVERSED and REMANDED the Title VII/ELCRA discrimination and retaliation claims for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (Title VII & ELCRA): whether Redlin was discriminatorily treated (transfer, "minimally effective" rating, IDP, pay effects) | Redlin: her transfer, downgraded evaluation, and harsher discipline vs. Flint show gender-based disparate treatment; creates jury question on pretext | District: actions were nondiscriminatory discipline for misconduct; Flint not similarly situated or disciplined by different supervisors | Reversed as to discrimination; jury issue exists because comparator evidence and employer explanations raise genuine factual disputes about pretext |
| Retaliation for opposing sex discrimination (Title VII & ELCRA): whether adverse actions were caused by her complaint to Dean | Redlin: she complained to Dean (protected activity); temporal proximity, Niehaus admitted the transfer was due in part to her "gender complaint," and differential treatment vs. Flint show causation | District: adverse actions were justified by nondiscriminatory reasons; timing and causal link insufficient | Reversed as to retaliation; sufficient circumstantial evidence (temporal evidence, Niehaus testimony, comparator treatment) to create genuine issue on causation and pretext |
| FMLA retaliation: whether taking FMLA leave led to adverse actions upon return | Redlin: after leave she was told she would get only an interim evaluation, remain on IDP, and lose rolling contract — adverse acts that could deter employees from taking leave | District: any confusion was temporary; Redlin in fact received a full evaluation, effective rating, two-year contract, and no ongoing adverse action | Affirmed as to FMLA claim; no genuine dispute that an adverse employment action occurred after FMLA leave |
| Comparator/similar-employee analysis: whether Flint is a proper comparator for showing pretext and causation | Redlin: Flint and Redlin engaged in similar misconduct under the same standards and Dean was involved in both discipline decisions, making them similarly situated | District: Flint had different supervisors/discipline; therefore not similarly situated | Court: Flint is a valid comparator here given common involvement of Dean and shared standards; comparator evidence supports jury inference of pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for indirect evidence discrimination)
- Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.) (tangible employment action requirement for negative evaluations)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.) (methods to show pretext)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir.) (guidance on what makes employees similarly situated)