William Tennial v. United Parcel Serv.
840 F.3d 292
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- William Tennial, a long-time African-American UPS manager, served as Hub Manager of the Memphis Twilight Sort; after recurring service failures he was placed on a Management Performance Improvement Plan (MPIP) in April 2012 and demoted to Full Time Hub Supervisor in July 2012.
- Tennial acknowledged service failures but blamed inexperienced staff, lack of support, and prior disarray at the Twilight Sort; he asserts Caucasian managers with comparable failures were not similarly disciplined.
- After a September 2011 meeting with district leadership, Tennial took FMLA leave for stress and returned in early 2012; he later alleges Harms and others created a hostile environment and penalized him for taking leave.
- Tennial sued UPS and supervisors Cochran and Slabaugh alleging race discrimination (§1981, Title VII, THRA), age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination and denied accommodation (ADA), and FMLA interference/retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Tennial’s Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery; the district clerk taxed costs against Tennial. Tennial appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (direct & circumstantial) | Stray racial slurs by supervisors and evidence of disparate treatment of white managers show discriminatory motive or pretext. | Demotion was performance-based (MPIP failures); stray comments were remote and comparators were not similarly situated. | No direct evidence; McDonnell Douglas analysis: plaintiff established prima facie case but failed to show pretext—comparators were not sufficiently similar; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Age discrimination (ADEA) | Replacement by a younger manager shows age-based demotion. | Demotion was for poor performance; mere replacement by a younger person is insufficient to show pretext. | Prima facie shown, but replacement alone cannot establish pretext; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Disability discrimination / failure to accommodate (ADA) | Took FMLA leave for work-related stress; requested recording to help understand expectations — claimed as accommodation request and discrimination. | Decisionmakers lacked knowledge that leave was for stress; request was vague and Cochran offered a written accommodation alternative. | Decisionmakers were not shown to know of the disability; recording request was not a sufficiently specific accommodation request and writing was a reasonable alternative; claim fails. |
| FMLA interference / retaliation | Placement on MPIP and later demotion were retaliation for taking FMLA leave during peak season; temporal proximity and company hostility toward peak-season leave support causation. | Tennial was granted leave and reinstated; demotion followed months after return and was performance-based; proffered evidence of bias was hearsay/remote. | No interference (benefits not denied); retaliation fails—gap >6 months and no other compelling evidence of causation; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
- Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2011) (pretext standard in employment discrimination)
- Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2012) (requirements for properly similarly situated comparators)
- Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (elements of prima facie ADA discrimination)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (limits of temporal-proximity inference for retaliation)