Robert Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Comm'n

performance tendency has a to Deleon, result, Robert DELEON Mae

produce is a the desired commence Plaintiffs-Appellants, ment of was announced and operations[,]” where preliminary followed contexts physical pertaining proper activities by Id. KALAMAZOO COUNTY ROAD COM

ty had the lessee. been commenced at 474. MISSION; Travis Bartholomew and Johnson, Joanna in their official and Still, filing the act of the DPU did not capacities, Defendants-Ap individual vacuum; Chesapeake occur in a did not pellees. simply piece paper file had no its practical plaintiffs effect on use of No. 12-2377. Rather, property. operations because had unit, United Court of already Appeals, on the States commenced Asuncion Circuit. Sixth filing of the DPU was an act in an join property endeavor to Plaintiffs’ in the Argued: Oct. 2013. production Chesapeake unit that was in process exploiting. Whether fil- Decided and Filed: Jan. ing of the effect unitizing the DPU had not,2 under the lease or it was clearly an

act similar to or incidental “in acts obtain,

search endeavor for or production

maintain or increase of oil gas”-from the Plaintiffs’ property.

and/or

We REVERSE REMAND for en-

try favor of Chesapeake. regarding 2. We have serious doubts certainly by the dis- can be understood as advocated reading trict requiring court's lease as Chesapeake upon unitization Chesa- —that drilling permit application that a pertaining peake, property is deemed to have been premises the leased be filled as a condition drilling permit unitized applica- as of date the language unitization. The relied on pertaining tion to the unit was submitted so court: Plaintiff receives full benefit of all purposes provisions For all under event, operations any on the unit. because Lease, the Leasehold shall be deemed operations we conclude commenced upon to be unitized submission of the drill- regard operated without to whether the DPU ing permit application pertaining to the rel- property, to unitize the we need not address drilling production evant gov- unit to the the issue further. authority having jurisdiction ernmental ... Emanuel, Na-

ARGUED: Lennox The P.C., Detroit, Group, Michigan, tional Law Derderian, H. Mi- Appellants. for Thomas Assoc., Okemos, R. Kluck & Michi- chael ON BRIEF: Lennox gan, Appellees. P.C., Emanuel, Group, The National Law Detroit, Appellants. Thom- Michigan, for Derderian, & As- H. Michael R. Kluck soc., Okemos, Michigan, Appellees. SUTTON, KEITH and Circuit Before: BLACK, Judges; Judge.* District KEITH, J., opinion delivered court, BLACK, D.J., joined. in which 921-23), SUTTON, (pp. delivered J. dissenting opinion. separate OPINION KEITH, Judge. DAMON Circuit J. (“Deleon”) appeals Robert Deleon of his claims from dismissal of certain * Ohio, Black, by designation. sitting Timothy Honorable S. United Judge for the Southern District States District (“Johnson”). summary grant judg- Johnson

district court’s Joanna favor. The district vacancy ment Defendants’ “Equip- arose for the Defendants’ on the granted court motion Superintendent.” ment and Facilities did not suffer “ad- basis that Deleon job description working described the con- action.” verse Deleon in “primarily as office in [] ditions and laterally department from one transferred exposure is garage there to loud another, alleges which constituted 55-4, noises and diesel R. 5. fumes.” Ex. rise to claims of giving sustainable applied position Deleon for this on Novem- appeal, principal discrimination. On the ber 2008. Had he been offered the (1) Court are: issues before this position, Deleon that he attested sufficiently intolerable conditions were $10,000 salary have demanded a increase. actionable maintain discrimination position possessing He also viewed the as claims; (2) that De- and whether the fact potential better for career advancement. and for leon for interviewed interview, After Deleon was informed position eventually he was trans- to which he did position. not receive the He disqualifies showing ferred him from skills, computer admits his truly action was “ad- qualification were substantive for the follow, verse.” For the reasons that we position, Consequently, were insufficient. answer in Deleon’s favor on both issues. commission hired another candidate grant Accordingly, we REVERSE position shortly who left the thereafter. summary judgment and REMAND for The Commission then offered the position opinion. proceedings consistent this candidate; to an external this candidate eventually declined. Deleon was I. BACKGROUND involuntarily position.1 transferred to the Deleon, fifty-three year Hispanic old Commission, descent, According to the this was male of Mexican was employed part larger County “reorganization.” the Kalamazoo Road R. (“the Commission”) twenty years. for Ex. 4. eight Bartholomew admitted that he and Beginning Deleon as an served Johnson decided to transfer Deleon. De- Superintendent” “Area Commis- objections voiced leon numerous to the sion. capacity, supervised In that Deleon posed by position. hazards the new De- activities, crews, road maintenance road leon testified applying posi- and repairs. generally oversaw Deleon re- tion, he demanded a raise because of the ceived positive throughout reviews his time posed by “hazard fumes poor diesel position. alleges perva- this equipment ventilation and facilities atmosphere insensitivity sive racial area.” Deleon receive request- did not his derogatory throughout comments ed raise. Another corroborated employment. course of his description the conditions: “It’s stinky like sticking your environment. It’s serving Superintendent, While Area in an supervised by pipe. you Deleon was Tra- head exhaust Have Defendants ever (“Bartholomew”) vis Bartholomew city sat in traffic behind a bus? That’s 1. Although originally applied equipment superintendent. and facilities Q. position, application his was denied. Nine A. Correct. He had Correct? to do what- later, involuntarily months Deleon was trans- he was told terms of ever to do in the transfer. (De- Correct.”). position. ferred to the R. 64 at 110-11 A. Correct? dissent notwith- "Q. [employer] standing, present Bartholomew: the facts here do not a "vol- something untary application,” involuntary This wasn't he had a choice in rather an but moving superintendent terms of from area transfer. Commission, facility Deleon had ex- in the maintenance was like what it 64, Ex. all the time.” R. hausted all of available leave. ... fumes “an stated that it was p. OF II. STANDARD REVIEW facility with garage office and enclosed that result- equipment trucks and running grant We review district court’s fumes.” exposure to diesel ed in constant summary judgment City novo. de According pp. 230-231. Ex. Corp. v. Management United States Chem. only this was Area Su- employee, Summary these con- perintendent position subject to appropriate only plead if the developed Deleon asserts that he ditions. depositions,' interrogato to ings, answers a cough well as and sinus bronchitis —as admissions, affi together ries and with the to the fumes—and headaches due davits, is genuine show there no issue his nostrils as blow black soot from moving party material fact and the a result. to a a of law. entitled as matter 56(A); Tennessee, v. Tucker Fed.R.Civ.P. Thereafter, in- Deleon’s evaluation first 526, Cir.2008). F.3d 531 The 539 “accept- performance was dicated that show moving party burden is on the to able in critical areas but [was] most genuine that no issue material fact ex satisfactory above minimum sufficiently 56(C)(1); Bennett ists. Fed.R.Civ.P. Bartho- Ex. 8. level in all areas.” 810, City Eastpointe, F.3d 817 410 work, Deleon for his hard lomew thanked facts, The inferences and the but an area technology identified them, in the drawn from must be viewed Deleon, was improve. he could who nonmoving par light most favorable to the as to position, inquired in his new unhappy Inc., 477 Lobby, Anderson v. ty. Liberty why involuntarily been moved he “had 2505, 106 91 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. performing from a he was the question 202 is “whether well that was more hazardous.” to one disagree a presents evidence sufficient stated p. R.64 Ex. 61. Bartholomew require jury or ment to submission accept had no Deleon choice but party it is so that one one-sided the R. 64-1 at 110-11.. Deleon transfer. Id. at as a matter of law”. prevail must the transfer a deliberate asserts that was 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. attempt up to set him fail. asked to write a Bartholomew ANALYSIS III. redesign about of a memorandum Qualitative Intolerability A. However, disagreed truck. (1) viola brings of: strategy, and was sum- claims

principle with Equal Clause Deleon tion of the Protection moned into Bartholomew’s office. Amendment, under having meeting predicated Fourteenth testified as fractious (2) 1983; § discrimination days Four after the 42 U.S.C. race with Bartholomew. Rights five Act of Deleon was in violation of Civil meeting, hospitalized (3) § national days. seq.; to 42 2000e hospitalization He attributes et .U-S.C. work-induced, in violation of origin mental discrimination stress-related (4) breakdown, same; in viola eight age discrimination for which he took Employ August Age tion of the Discrimination months’ leave under FMLA. (“ADEA”). elements him to ment Act psychiatrist Deleon’s cleared un work, but, claim establishing Equal Protection point, at that return for establish- § Accord- and the elements had terminated him. der 1983 918 (4) disparate replaced treat by substantially a violation of Title VII Lautermilch v.

ment claim are same. younger employee, additional evidence Schs., Findlay City 275 employer shows that was motivated Fenik, Cir.2003); 860 Gutzwiller v. F.2d age. Dictaphone F.3d Corp., Bush 161 (6th Cir.1988). Similarly, “[t]o 363, 368 Equal a claim Protection state under all Importantly, three causes of Clause, § plaintiff allege must require aggrieved that the show plaintiff intentionally a state actor discriminated he suffered plaintiff because of member against action. An adverse action has ship protected Henry v. Met class.” a “materially been defined as Dist., Sewer ro. F.2d change in the terms and of a conditions Cir.1990) (internal omitted). quotations plaintiffs employment.” Bur White v. from dis prohibits employers Title VII lington Ry. N. & Santa Fe criminating against individuals on the basis (6th Cir.2004) (en banc) (citation 789, 795 origin. of both race and national U.S.C. omitted). A “mere inconvenience 2000e-2(a)(l); § Cintas Corp., Davis v. job responsibilities” is not Cir.2013). alteration (6th 717 F.3d 476 495 To estab enough employ to constitute an adverse prima lish a case of intentional dis facie (1) crimination, plaintiff a show that at (citing must ment action. Id. 797 v. Kocsis (2) class, was a protected he member of a Inc., 876, Mgmt. Multi-Care 885- action, suffered an employment he adverse 87). Commission, The and indeed the dis (3) qualified he was for the posi otherwise court, trict relied on proposition the (4) tion, and he was replaced someone “[rjeassignments changes without in sala protected or outside class treated dif benefits, title, ry, or usually work do hours situated, ferently similarly than a non-pro employment not constitute adverse ac employee. v. Wright Murray tected Kocsis, tions.” 97 F.3d at 885. Neverthe Guard, Inc., 702, 455 707 F.3d Cir. less, reassignment salary a without 2006) (citation omitted). however, changes, work may hour be an prohibits ADEA generally employment The em if adverse action it constitutes ployers by failing from discriminating a demotion evidenced distin a “less hire, refusing to or discrimi discharging, title, benefits, guished a material loss nating against respect “with individual significantly responsi diminished material conditions, terms, his compensation, or bilities, or other be might indices that privileges of employment, because such unique particular ato situation.” v.White age.” individual’s v. Provenzano LCI N. Burlington Ry. & Santa Fe 364 Inc., Holdings, 806, 663 811 F.3d Cir. 789, Cir.2004), 795 F.3d nom. sub aff'd 2011) 623(a)(1)). § (quoting 29 U.S.C. N. Burlington Ry. & Santa Fe Co. v. Generally, brought discrimination claims White, 53, 2405, 548 U.S. 126 S.Ct. 165 under Title VII and the ADEA are ana (2006) added). L.Ed.2d (emphasis 345 lyzed under the same framework. See Supreme Court issue addressed the Airlines, Inc., Policastro v. Northwest 297 at length Burlington Northern F.3d 538 To establish White, Railway Santa Fe 548 prima a age case for discrimination Co. facie U.S. 126 S.Ct. 165 L.Ed.2d 345 ADEA, under the plaintiff a must show case, (1) As the instant matter projected he was a member class, i.e., (2) transfer older, employment involved a from one years 40 old or (3) action, “salary suffered an unit to another without a change adverse title, position, benefits, he was otherwise qualified Burlington or work hours.” N., Burlington Northern & Santa Fe 797. The held at the F.3d at Court N, particular reassignment Railway Company. Burlington a “[w]hether depends the cir- upon materially Though 126 S.Ct. she 2405. U.S. case,” particular laborer,” cumstances initially staffed as a “track from judged perspective “should be a operate she was later transferred to plaintiffs posi- person a reasonable subsequently forklift. Id. She was re- ” tion, ‘all the considering circumstances.’ duty from forklift was reas- moved N., U.S. 126 S.Ct. Burlington signed perform track laborer tasks. Id. held that have We fairness, supervisor opined A “in classify as an adverse man the less ar- more senior should have dis- it constitutes “constructive operator.” duous and cleaner of forklift Airlines, Inc., Policastro Nw. charge.” omitted). (quotations plaintiff Id. In order EEOC, complaint and later filed constructively to be dis- for an court, contending that the reas- federal working conditions “must charged, the signment of her duties amounted to unlaw- per- objectively intolerable a reasonable Id. In gender-based ful discrimination. 886) Kocsis, 97 F.3d at (quoting son.” Id. determining whether had suf- plaintiff added). (emphasis ac- materially fered still, our Circuit has not foreclosed Even tion, Supreme relied on the Court rising transfer not possibility posi- that the new “considerable evidence” discharge might of a constructive level dirtier,” “more id. at tion was arduous and employ- a tangible constitute nonetheless 2405, 71, lack of a despite 126 S.Ct. J, See, e.g., Flying ment action. Keeton v. benefits, salary, title. On diminution in (6th Cir.2005); Inc., 259, 265 Hol- 429 F.3d basis, Supreme held that Court 652, 662 lins Atl. 188 F.3d that the “jury reasonably could conclude Cir.1999). cases, nar- In those the focus materially reassignment would have been there “other indices rows to whether are Id. In employee.” adverse to a reasonable unique particular be to the might vein, this has also held the same Court which could turn what would situation” an transferred to employee where is ordinarily an adverse backwater,” showing of “some wretched minimum, Id. At into one. action is basis of supplied on the quantita- must be able to show a Mattei, intolerability. Mattei v. 126 F.3d change qualitative tive in the terms 794, 808 employment. Patt v. conditions See Inc., 749, Family Sys., Health 280 F.3d Accordingly, as we assess insofar 753 intolerability, conclude that the level of we at the sum has met his threshold The case law thus indicates that stage. that we mary judgment Reminded constitute a mate employee’s most light must view the evidence in the action, even rially adverse plaintiff, we conclude favorable decrease, pay of a demotion or absence alleged claim. has actionable long particular so as the circumstances Inc., Liberty 477 U.S. Lobby, Anderson v. objective present rise to give some level 2505, 106 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed.2d North intolerability. Again, Burlington provided that he evidence There, Supreme ern instructive. toxic exposed was and hazardous a writ of after we granted Court certiorari 1, 64, daily pp. Ex. on a basis. R. opinion. plaintiff- fumes issued an en banc had only He further that he working woman 230-233. testified respondent was on a wipe weekly soot out his office ed an adverse employment action where result, at 231. As a another, basis. Id. Deleon there was evidence that more de bronchitis, sirable, claims that he contracted had job lateral opening plain for which headaches, frequent and would occa- sinus qualified may tiff was have existed but was sionally black soot out of his blow nostrils. plaintiff); not offered to the Sharp City Id. at 231. The work conditions were cor- Houston, 923, Cir. employee, Timothy roborated another 1999) (reversing grant summary judg Landrum, compared quality who the air in ment jury could have “[t]he found “sticking your position to head transfer, that the albeit at Sharp’s request, sitting pipe,” city exhaust “behind a demotion, was a constructive the involun 8, p. bus.” R. Ex. 31. Deleon avers tary result of conditions so intolerable that previous position exposed that his never person a reasonable compelled would feel him presented by to the level of hazard leave”); Belknap, see also Huck v. 2:06- position. new Ex. p. 230. The CV-1088, 2008 WL 2247069 at *6 testimony presents sufficient indication (S.D.Ohio 2008) (“The May fact that that the work environment objectively Huck once to which she Kocsis, intolerable. 97 F.3d at 886. Ac- was transferred does not as a matter of cordingly, we conclude that “the evidence law mean that she it at wanted the time of presents sufficient disagreement,” her involuntary transfer it cannot Anderson, U.S. 106 S.Ct. materially action”); be a cf. 2505, as to whether the transfer was mate- Auto., Simpson Inc., v. Borg-Warner rially person, adverse to reasonable es- Cir.1999) 876-78 (holding pecially in light of the factual similarities that voluntary transfer was not an adverse between Burlington the instant case and employment action where the work envi Northern. Here too there is evidence for ronment was not intolerable and assessing jury consider that the new voluntariness under “constructive dis was “more arduous and dirtier.” Burling- charge” analysis). Accordingly, we con N., ton U.S. 126 S.Ct. 2405. circumstances, clude that under certain voluntary requested still B. Application the Position give rise to an act We must also address the issue that ion.2 Deleon applied position for the before be The record reflects that Deleon applied ing “involuntarily” transferred. Semanti position for the with the intention of com- cally, argument follows that an action manding a substantial raise and under the truly cannot “adverse” if coveted its impression benefits actor. No case within this circuit has would inure to the benefit of his career. Nevertheless, ruled on precise issue. a request Such pay,” “hazard our sister circuits have held that the re provided, never tilts the issue transfer, as to quest of a and accession to the whether really requested new or want- position, does not categorically bar a position ed the finding his favor. Nor of an adverse are we action. See, persuaded e.g., by the fact Richardson v. that Deleon techni- New York State Service, Dep’t cally request, Correctional never withdrew his 180 F.3d and did (2d Cir.1999) 444 n. 4 (finding complain at the suffi time he received the cient support evidence to a conclusion that transfer. Although Deleon not testify did requested a transfer by plaintiff constitut specifically he told a superior that he 1, supra. 2. See note SUTTON, testify Judge, dissenting. Circuit job, he did “like” his new

did not supervisors and approached his that he employee voluntarily applies an When job of a “why they took me out them asked for, obtains, transfer, job employ- his job put me doing good I was [where] subjected him er has not job.” p. hazardous in a more employment action. argument that he supports Deleon’s This for a applied Robert Deleon transfer to leery of a up to fail.”3 We are

was “set equipment superinten- and facilities require that an involun- holding that would position, strings dent no attached. When a dis- employee, alleging tarily transferred posted position, the Road Commission environment, must de- criminatory work (then an superintendent) area saw very superiors from the mand a transfer opportunity ap- for advancement and in the discrimination. engaging (Tr. 1-3, 5-6; plied. R.55-4 at R.64 at 19 75). knowledge at with full He emphasize key that the focus of We potential the transfer’s downside. As to the lateral inquiry should not be whether job description diesel fumes: The warned requested, or not requested transfer was position “exposure involved plaintiff must aggrieved or whether the ex fumes,” at 1- loud noises R.55-4 dissatisfaction, voice but whether tempore 3, something he had seen firsthand and the transfer” would have the “conditions of (Tr. at mitigating. had ideas for R.64 to a “objectively been intolerable reason 75-76). responsibil- at As to the additional Michigan Dep’t person.” able Strouss ities: Deleon understood he would need to (6th Cir.2001) Corr., 250 F.3d job. learn new skills on the R.64 at (citation omitted). Indeed, employee’s 140). (Tr. 46, 62, 138, Yes, at his transfer, opinion positive request higher included a for a application dispositive bearing no on an negative, has But salary employee. and an additional as “ad employment actions classification kept application his active and interviewed Sch., Pub. verse.” See Sanchez v. Denver supervisors told after Cir.1998); Doe 164 F.3d 532 n. 6 job not come with a him that the Dist., County v. Dekalb Sch. 6-8; employee. or another R.55-3 at raise Removing 1449-50 (Tr. 138-39). at 30 at After the R.64 grounds the issue of material fact on the offered the to an external law, plaintiffs as a matter of candidate, complained super- to his position pre initial to obtain the request job. at getting about not R.55-1 visors finding (Tr. (Tr. cludes him from a that he suffered 42, 44-49); at 36 8-9 R.64 materially employment 224). action a resigned the initial hire for When (cid:127) would, judgment, improper. in our On reasons and a second external personal basis, foregoing job, for the other the Com- candidate turned down the reasons, job. Deleon the R.55-3 at gave we the order the mission REVERSE (Tr. 229). 11-13; In Court, R.64 at 37 at recount- District and REMAND for further facts, hints to ing majority offers proceedings. joba up alleged that she was transferred to that he was "set to 3. Deleon's assertion perform). employer knew she could not support law as well. her fail” finds in the case Considering testimony De- the volume of at Corp., 305 F.3d See Ford v. Gen. Motors (6th Cir.2002); detailing and ex- deposition the nature v. Good- leon's accord Dilenno Indus, atmosphere racially-charged at the Pennsylvania, tent of the will Mid-Eastern Commission, (court (3d Cir.1998) passing, we that it is grant- in observe erred in F.3d 235 up plausible Deleon was "set to fail.” ing summary judgment employee where an (Tr. he at contrary Deleon somehow did ever was told.” R.64-1 at —that 110-11). job, Maj. at 916- not out the on Relying description seek this —one they all turn on citations 17 and 921—but indirectly Deleon references for the first brief, not the sum- appellate to Deleon’s reply appeal time in his brief on and never mary record. summary judg- referenced below his majority alternatively ment briefs—the give decision to De-

The Commission’s “involuntary” calls Deleon’s transfer an wanted, he persisted leon he what what Maj. succeed, one a footnote. at 916 n. 1. But at he did not seeking when first why? The record makes clear that Deleon not amount to an adverse did action, retaliatory one. complained much less De- never about the transfer —he voluntarily job applied leon sought supervisors it out—and his never cons, knowledge pros full of its mak- told him that he had no choice in the ing it difficult to fathom how he could admits, matter. As Deleon he “didn’t tell a claim retaliation on the premise anybody” that he did not want the trans- A transfer alone. retaliation claim re- (Tr. 61); fer. R.64 at 16 at R.64-1 at 18 quires employer something to do bad (Tr. (Tr. 89). 110); R.64-2 at 11 employee something might — That might have trans- “have dissuaded reasonable worker objected ferred Deleon even he had to it if making supporting charge from change, change, does not cannot the out- Burlington N. & Santa discrimination.” come of a retaliation lawsuit. No reason- White, Ry. Fe v.Co. 548 U.S. 126 able employee interpret could a transfer as S.Ct. 165 L.Ed.2d 345 That attempt punish him exercising for his cannot concept be bent stretched to anti-discrimination rights gave when his employer’s grant cover an decision to an employer no reason to believe that he did employee’s request transfer. No every not want the transfer and reason to employee reasonable Deleon’s repeat: believe that he did. To anWhen interpreted would have the transfer as an for, employee voluntarily applies and ob- act him designed prevent from exercis- tains, job transfer, employer his has not rights against anti-discrimination. subjected him to an adverse setting, nothing it adds action. claim that the soot and diesel fumes in majority worries focusing unpleasant Deleon’s new office were circumstances, on Deleon’s the court will difficult deal with. Deleon objective subjec- transform test into a knowledge with full of the condi- tive one. No worry. need to The materi- complained tions—and indeed when he did ally inquiry whether a asks “rea- initially get job. An adverse em- ” plaintiffs position in the person sonable ployment requires conduct forgo filing complaint would of discrimi- employer that hinder a reasonable nation because of the action. complaining from about discrimi- added). Id. at 69-70 (emphasis inqui- nation. could a reasonable employee How ry objective. remains The answer to the interpret granting sought-after of a question simply must concern the facts at warning transfer as a complain not hand. about this or that conduct of the employer? escapes answer me. my knowledge No case to holds that goes granting sought-after

The same transfer itself description transfer one of supervisors employment Deleon’s amounts to an adverse action. a situation where Deleon “had to majority’s say nothing do what- The case citations sense, law and common I must return to They instead stand for contrary. An propositions. uncontroversial an point: employee these this surface When vol- requested recover for a employee may for, obtains, untarily applies employee “believed transfer when transfer, subjected employer has keep her necessary in order to change was employment him to an adverse action. Marine, Inc., 617 job.” Spees v. James majority seeing differently, it I Cir.2010); v. see Garrett F.3d respectfully must dissent. Trs., Birmingham Bd. Ala. at Univ. of That 507 F.3d for a voluntary request is not a of course employee goes The same for an

transfer. seeking refuge for a transfer applies

who discriminatory conditions in his cur

from Sharp City v. position. Compare rent Cir.1999)

Houston, 164 F.3d could (holding requested that a America, UNITED STATES action because Plaintiff-Appellee, co-workers “caused her reason plaintiffs stayed”), if ably safety fear for her she v. Auto., Inc., Simpson Borg-Warner Cir.1999) SEYMOUR, (reaching Irving T. Defendant- plaintiff vol opposite Appellant. conclusion untarily “sought downgrade”). her No. 12-4313. interpretation Whatever the correct be, retaliation laws Appeals, United States Court of they surely stop imposing at this line: Sixth Circuit.

liability employers they grant on Jan. deny employee’s request trans- agree today’s All would case is fer. employee got one—where the

the harder yet, according to the

what he wanted—and claim.

majority, cognizable he still has a majority’s analysis

It follows under employer when the denies what wants, cognizable has a also Geithner, 703 Taylor

claim. See (6th Cir.2013) that a (finding allegation that “she

plaintiffs rejected” from a

and was action”).

“plainly

An the retaliation laws interpretation of subjects employers liability coming granting after em- going —whether requests denying them—will do

ployee the law

more to breed confusion about a fair and goals

than to advance the plumb- Even after

respectful workplace. depths logic, experience, case

Case Details

Case Name: Robert Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Comm'n

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 14, 2014

Citation: 739 F.3d 914

Docket Number: 12-2377

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.