Walleon Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 394
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bobo, an African American UPS supervisor and Army Reserve member, faced alleged hostility to his military duty at the Oakhaven facility in Memphis.
- Bobo requested military leave for annual training in 2006–2007; UPS allowed some leave but questioned his duties and prepared to recoup overpayments linked to military pay offsets.
- A safety ride program at Oakhaven involved documenting demonstrations; investigators later found many forms were improperly completed or falsified.
- Bobo was terminated on May 22, 2007 for alleged safety-ride falsifications amid evidence suggesting a broader pattern of misconduct at the facility; several Caucasian colleagues admitted similar issues but were not discharged.
- Bobo sued UPS under USERRA (military service discrimination and retaliation) and Title VII/§1981/THRA race discrimination and retaliation; discovery issues and the district court’s summary judgment order shaped the appellate review.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, remanding for further discovery, and held genuine issues of material fact preclude entry of summary judgment on most discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparity discovery scope and comparator data | Bobo needed broader comparator data beyond Ronnie Wallace | Mitchell framework limited to identified comparators within the chain of command | Discovery error warranted reversal; remand for broader comparator discovery |
| USERRA discrimination and retaliation viability | Evidence shows military status motivated discharge and retaliation | Proffered reasons would have led to same action absent military status | Genuine issues of material fact; USERRA claims survive summary judgment for trial |
| Race discrimination under Title VII/§1981 and mixed-motive theory | Mixed-motive theory applicable; race could be a motivating factor | Standard proof requires a single-m motive with comparators | Reversal of summary judgment on discrimination; mixed-motive theory viable for trial |
| THRA claims and Gossett/Hannan developments | THRA should mirror Title VII analysis | THRA analysis aligns with pre-Gossett/McDonnell Douglas framework | Court leaves THRA issue for district court to apply pre/post-Gossett changes as appropriate on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (comparator relevance not limited to Mitchell factors; focus on relevance of similarities)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (discrimination cases avoid credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Clay v. UPS, 501 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2007) (discovery and comparator data reversal for two plaintiffs; framework for disclosure of comparators)
- McMillan v. Castro, 405 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2005) (limits of same-supervisor requirement; flexibility in comparator analysis)
- Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (initially framed 'similarly-situated' framework for comparator evidence)