600 F. App'x 337
6th Cir.2015Background
- Sharp, an electrical/instrumentation designer, was terminated in a 2009 workforce reduction at Aker and later pursued age-discrimination claims against Aker.
- In 2010, a staffing agency offered Sharp a temporary role at DuPont, which Aker rejected citing violations of DuPont policies on recording devices.
- Aker's rejection referenced DuPont Site Policies and Safety Manual prohibiting cameras/recording devices and requiring safe handling of ignition sources.
- Sharp filed an EEOC charge alleging retaliation for his ongoing age-discrimination suit; district court granted summary judgment for Aker.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding there were triable issues on causation, comparators, and pretext, and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation under McDonnell Douglas framework | Sharp shows a causal link between protected activity and rehire decision. | No sufficient causal link; timing and comparators insufficient. | Genuine causal question remains; evidence supports prima facie case. |
| Temporal proximity and comparators together | Timing plus similarly situated comparators create inference of retaliation. | Temporal gap alone is insufficient and comparators are not properly situated. | District court erred by considering factors in isolation; combined evidence supports causation. |
| Use of Stanfield as a comparator | Stanfield’s conduct shows policy violation similar to Sharp and was not disciplined. | Stanfield is not properly situated as a comparator for disciplinary purposes. | Plaintiff may rely on Stanfield to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. |
| Pretext and reasonableness of Aker's justification | Aker’s justification is contrived; others violated similar policies without consequence. | Aker had an honestly held belief in the policy violation and reasonable decision-making. | The evidence raises triable issues on pretext; remand for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (causal inference can be shown with circumstantial evidence)
- Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007) (no single factor dispositive in causation;)
- Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (temporal proximity weighed with other evidence)
- Plumb v. Potter, 212 F. App’x 472 (6th Cir. 2007) (opportunity to retaliate can exist after long intervals)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (6th Cir. 2001) (honest belief in nondiscriminatory reason is not pretext absent untruthful process)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (reasonableness of the decisional process is key to pretext inquiry)
- Hale v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 503 F. App’x 323 (6th Cir. 2012) (evidence of disparate treatment can support causation)
- Ladd v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 552 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence may show pretext)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (framework for evaluating pretext evidence)