Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-09-04486/USCOURTS-ca6-09-04486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis A. Badertscher
Appellant
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company
Appellee

Document Text:

File Name: 11a0010n.06

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

No. 09-4486

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS A. BADERTSCHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

/

Before: MARTIN, NORRIS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. 

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Dennis A. Badertscher, who

is male, was fifty-two years old when defendant-appellee Procter & Gamble Manufacturing

Company fired him. Badertscher sued for reverse gender discrimination and age discrimination.

The district court granted Procter & Gamble’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. We

AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 

I. BACKGROUND

Badertscher was an at-will employee at the Lima, Ohio detergent plant of Procter & Gamble.

In mid-December 2006, Procter & Gamble began an investigation into reports of interpersonal

problems at the plant. Members of the management conducted a series of interviews with

employees. Six employees stated that they had witnessed Badertscher engage in inappropriate

 Case: 09-4486 Document: 006110832990 Filed: 01/04/2011 Page: 1
No. 09-4486

Badertscher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.

Page 2

behavior toward a female employee, five employee stated that he did not wear personal protective

equipment, and five employees stated that they had witnessed him sleeping on the job. Procter &

Gamble terminated Badertscher’s employment based on the combination of three categories of

misconduct: sexual harassment, violation of safety rules, and sleeping on the job. Eight members

of management were involved in the decision. 

II. ANALYSIS

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. DiCarlo v. Potter,

358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 2004). To grant a motion for summary judgment, a court must find that

“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Badertscher’s claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

and Ohio state law and his claim of gender discrimination under Ohio state law may be analyzed

together because the same analytical framework applies to both the federal and Ohio statutory

provisions at issue. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1992). Title VII

single-motive claims proceeding on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the burden-shifting

framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and modified by

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). First, the plaintiff must

establish a prima facie case by showing that “(1) he or she was a member of a protected class; (2)

he or she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he or she was qualified for the position; and

(4) he or she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than

 Case: 09-4486 Document: 006110832990 Filed: 01/04/2011 Page: 2
No. 09-4486

Badertscher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.

Page 3

similarly-situated, non-protected employees.” DiCarlo, 358 F.3d at 415. Once the plaintiff

establishes a prima facie case, the defendant then bears the burden of production to put forth a

“legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the complained of adverse treatment. Id. at 414 (citing

Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). If the defendant meets this burden, then the burden of production shifts

back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proffered reason was a “pretext for discrimination.” Id.

at 414-15 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). 

The district court’s decision granting Procter & Gamble’s motion for summary judgment was

based on proper legal analysis. Procter &Gamble articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

for his termination that Badertscher failed to rebut. Badertscher failed to raise genuine issue of

material fact as to whether Procter & Gamble’s stated reason for firing him was a pretext for

discrimination. 

III. CONCLUSION

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-4486 Document: 006110832990 Filed: 01/04/2011 Page: 3