Richardson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.3d 698

Background

Richardson, 62, worked 12 years at a Wal‑Mart Lansing store and held several supervisory and hourly roles; she had received three prior "coachings" under Wal‑Mart’s progressive discipline policy.
Coachings escalate: first three are written (with action plans required for 2nd/3rd), fourth level results in termination; coachings are electronically acknowledged by user IDs/passwords.
In March 2013 Richardson tripped over an L‑Cart, broke her wrist, and managers reviewed surveillance video concluding she created a safety hazard and violated safety rules.
Because Richardson already had three active coachings, store manager Darby concluded the safety incident warranted the fourth‑level coaching and terminated her on March 25, 2013.
Richardson sued under Michigan’s Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act alleging age discrimination; after removal and dismissal of other claims, the district court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Richardson presented direct evidence of age discrimination	Statements by former manager Eschtruth ("too old"; asking when she would quit) and Darby’s alleged pervasive mistreatment show direct animus	Eschtruth was not a decisionmaker in the termination; Darby’s conduct requires inference and is not direct proof of age bias	No direct evidence: statements by nondecisionmaker and conduct requiring inference do not satisfy direct‑evidence standard
Whether Richardson established a prima facie circumstantial case and rebutted Wal‑Mart’s nondiscriminatory reason	Claimed coachings were fabricated/unauthenticated and individually meritless; argued age was a factor	Wal‑Mart conceded prima facie but proffered legitimate reason: unsafe work practices combined with prior coachings justified termination	Prima facie conceded; employer offered legitimate reason; plaintiff failed to show pretext
Admissibility/authenticity of coaching records	Coaching documents are unverifiable, not in paper file, not hand‑signed, and first appear in litigation; thus unreliable	Records were attached to notarized manager declarations, electronically acknowledged by IDs/passwords, and stored in employer’s electronic system	Records admissible: electronic acknowledgements suffice; statute not invoked by plaintiff; plaintiff had herself acknowledged coachings
Whether Wal‑Mart’s stated reason was pretext (honest‑belief rule)	Alleged inconsistencies and selective enforcement show pretext; argued one or more coachings should be disregarded	Darby reasonably relied on the particularized facts before him (three prior coachings + video); employer entitled to honest‑belief protection	No evidence Darby lacked an honest belief; honest‑belief rule applies; plaintiff failed to demonstrate pretext

Key Cases Cited

Dodd v. Donahoe, 715 F.3d 151 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment genuine‑issue standard)
Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2002) ("mere scintilla" rule)
Bondurant v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 679 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2012) (ELCRA/ADEA analysis)
Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009) (direct evidence must come from decisionmaker)
Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch., 766 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2014) (but‑for causation discussion post‑Gross)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but‑for causation for ADEA claims)
Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2011) (McDonnell Douglas framework for age discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework)
Bender v. Hecht’s Dep’t Stores, 455 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006) (pretext standard)
Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll., 698 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2012) (honest‑belief rule)
Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, 766 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2014) (employer’s investigation need not be perfect)