Dive Brief:
- A former HR director for the University of Toledo failed to show that the university fired her in retaliation for her opposition to what she perceived as an unlawful promotion decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday.
- The plaintiff in Kovacs v. University of Toledo claimed that she opposed the promotion because the university had not advertised the job first. The plaintiff believed that this decision did not comply with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ requirements or equal employment opportunity laws. After informing other staff about her concerns, she was demoted and subsequently fired four months later.
- The university claimed it fired the plaintiff because she failed to attend meetings, was frequently out of office, did not offer mentorship to assigned trainees and failed to adequately complete projects. She alleged her firing violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the school and the 6th Circuit affirmed.
Dive Insight:
According to the decision, the plaintiff attempted to show that the firing decision had close temporal proximity to her decision to raise concerns about the promotion. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said in guidance that the fact that an adverse employment action occurs shortly after a plaintiff engages in protected activity may be used as evidence to establish a link between the two.
The 6th Circuit, however, ultimately agreed with the district court that the four-month gap between the activity and the firing was “too long” to show causation, adding that the plaintiff failed to provide any other evidence to support her claim.
The plaintiff argued that the district court failed to properly weigh a probable-cause finding that she received from Ohio’s Civil Rights Commission that her employer engaged in unlawful retaliation. But the 6th Circuit agreed with the lower court that the finding had “little to no evidentiary weight” because the document primarily focused on alleged racial discrimination affecting other employees at the school.
Other recent HR professional plaintiffs have had more success in alleging retaliation against their employers. In 2024, for instance, a federal judge denied a food producer’s motion for summary judgment in the case of a former HR manager who claimed she was transferred to a lower-paying role with fewer benefits after taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The parties to the case later agreed to a settlement.
Earlier that year, EEOC settled with an employer on behalf of three employees — including an HR manager — who were allegedly fired for surfacing discrimination and harassment concerns.
