Ryan Boshaw v. Midland Brewing Co., 32 F.4th 598

Boshaw, an openly gay server, was hired by Midland Brewing in May 2018 and received three promotions within eight months, ultimately becoming front-of-house operations manager.
His supervisor, Donna Reynolds, told him to “act a little more masculine,” change his hairstyle, remove visible piercings, and remove a Facebook relationship status if he wanted a promotion.
Boshaw complied with some requests (hairstyle change, temporarily removed Facebook status) but continued to post publicly about his partner and family on Instagram.
He had multiple documented performance issues (communication errors, hiring mistakes, stepping outside assigned duties) and missed a mandatory meeting and an assigned shift in May 2019; Midland terminated him for absence and failure to notify management.
Boshaw filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued Midland, Kepler, and Reynolds alleging sex discrimination, retaliation under Title VII and Michigan’s ELCRA, conspiracy, and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Boshaw appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / enforceability of contract limitations	Boshaw filed within 90 days of EEOC; contractual 180-day limit shouldn't bar his Title VII suit	Midland argued employment contract required suit within 180 days of termination	Held: Title VII statute of limitations cannot be prospectively waived; contract provision unenforceable; suit timely
Sex discrimination (promotions — stereotyping & sexual orientation)	Reynolds conditioned promotion on acting masculine and hiding relationship status	Midland promoted Boshaw three times quickly; postings showed he remained publicly out	Held: No adverse action shown; rapid promotions and public social media undermine causation; summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation (hyper‑scrutiny and termination)	After complaining to owner, Reynolds increased scrutiny and Boshaw was later fired for missing meeting/shift	Defendants cite documented performance issues, absence, temporal gap between complaint and firing, and honest belief in termination reason	Held: Failed to show but‑for causation or pretext; temporal gap and honest‑belief rule defeat retaliation claim
Hostile work environment & conspiracy	Complaint’s factual allegations imply hostile environment and a conspiracy to retaliate	Incidents were isolated; no underlying unlawful retaliation proven to support conspiracy	Held: Isolated acts insufficient for hostile‑work‑environment; conspiracy claim fails without underlying violation

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (sex‑stereotyping is actionable sex discrimination)
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020) (title vii prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation)
Vereecke v. Huron Valley Sch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2010) (temporal distance weakens retaliation causation; need supplemental evidence)
Kenney v. Aspen Techs., Inc., 965 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2020) (McDonnell Douglas applied to retaliation claims and but‑for causation standard)
Nathan v. Great Lakes Water Auth., 992 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2021) (honest‑belief rule precludes pretext finding when employer reasonably believed its reason)
Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino, 939 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2019) (Title VII limitations are substantive and cannot be prospectively waived by contract)
Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (requirement that plaintiff show an adverse employment action)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for hostile work environment: severe or pervasive conduct alters conditions of employment)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes discrete discriminatory acts from hostile‑work‑environment claims)