NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0582n.06

No. 14-3828

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER J. MOFFAT, CLARISSA E. 

THOMPSON, and PATRICIA A. SCHMIDT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART 

ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WAL-MART STORES 

EAST, LP,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: KETHLEDGE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; LUDINGTON, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Christopher Moffat, Clarissa Thompson, and Patricia Schmidt appeal 

from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to their former employer, Wal-Mart Stores 

East, LP (Walmart),1on their age discrimination claims brought under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634, and analogous state law, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02. 

Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Walmart’s proffered reason 

for discharging Plaintiffs was pretext for age discrimination, we REVERSE.

 

*

The Honorable Thomas L. Ludington, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

1

In addition to Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Plaintiffs named Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and 

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., as defendants in their amended complaint. But as the district court 

noted, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, is the sole proper defendant.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-2-

I.

Walmart employed Plaintiffs at its Brooklyn, Ohio, store in the Lawn and Garden 

Department. Moffat worked as a sales associate for seven years, and Thompson for more than 

ten years. Schmidt, who served for more than sixteen years, was employed as the Brooklyn 

store’s Lawn and Garden Department Manager. According to Assistant Store Manager Brandon 

Donegan, Walmart assigned six employees to work primarily in the Lawn and Garden 

Department: Moffat (age 54), Thompson (62), Schmidt (59), and three younger associates 

(19, 21, and 23).

In June 2010, Walmart Asset Protection Coordinator Debbie Jenkins, while reviewing 

surveillance camera footage, saw Plaintiffs bag plants at a cash register, set the bags aside, and 

later carry the bags out of the store without paying. She suspected Plaintiffs of theft, and 

informed her supervisor, 31-year-old Market Asset Protection Manager Joe Theobald, who also 

viewed the video footage. Theobald instructed her to complete an investigation “by the book.”

As part of her investigation into the suspected theft, and after discussing the video with 

Theobald, Jenkins, along with an assistant store manager, interviewed each Plaintiff individually. 

After Plaintiffs admitted to taking the plants, Jenkins accused them of violating Walmart’s policy 

against accepting gifts from vendors. Walmart’s Statement of Ethics, to which employees must 

adhere, states that an employee “is to never accept gifts or entertainment from any supplier, 

potential supplier, government, or any person the associate has reason to believe may be seeking 

to influence business decisions or transactions.”2 The policy does not, however, define the term 

“gift.”

 

2

There are two versions of Walmart’s Statement of Ethics in the record. The parties do 

not contend that there are material differences between them.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-3-

According to Thompson, an employee of Bonnie Bell Plants (Bonnie Bell)—a Walmart 

vendor and owner of the plants3—removed the plants that “didn’t look good” from the display 

racks and placed them in a cart. He then took the cart to Thompson and asked her to throw the

plants away. Normally, the vendor’s employee loads the plants into his truck—rather than 

discard them at the Walmart store—but the store’s greenhouse had had an aphid infestation. 

Thompson, who apparently has a “green thumb,” noticed that some of the plants could be 

salvaged and commented to the Bonnie Bell employee that she “could save some of [the plants],”

to which he responded, “[G]o for it.” Thompson shared the vendor’s statement with Moffat and 

Schmidt, and they each took some plants they thought could be saved. Thompson discarded the 

remaining plants.4

During the interviews with Jenkins, Plaintiffs each identified others they believed 

engaged in similar conduct. Moffat testified that he was sure he told Jenkins and the assistant 

manager that he knew of at least three Lawn and Garden associates who had taken plants in 

previous years, including a department manager. Thompson similarly stated that several 

employees took discarded plants from Bonnie Bell in prior years and that members of 

management knew the employees were taking the plants. Schmidt told Jenkins that associates 

 

3 Bonnie Bell’s products were “pay-per-scan” merchandise. Under Walmart’s pay-perscan program: 

If an item is a pay-per-scan item, Walmart does not pay the vendor for the 

item unless and until it is sold to a customer. Accordingly, if the item is not sold 

and the vendor decides to take the item off of Walmart’s shelves and either try to 

sell it elsewhere or destroy it, for whatever reason, Walmart is not obligated to 

pay the vendor anything for that item. Essentially, the item never “belongs” to 

Walmart. Instead, in exchange for providing the vendor a venue in which to sell 

their [sic] product, Walmart receives a specified portion of the sale price of the 

item.

4

Thompson planted the plants she took in a neighbor’s yard where they thrived. The 

plants Moffat and Schmidt took did not revive.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-4-

occasionally received items, including cosmetic samples, mouthwash, and greeting-card 

envelopes, from other vendors. 

Plaintiffs also provided a written statement to Jenkins. Moffat wrote: “Bonnie Plant, as 

they do each year, threw out their vegetables. They told Clarissa [Thompson] to take whatever 

she wanted & throw the rest away. She took some, Pat [Schmidt] & I took 1 pepper plant & 1 

oregano plant. Anyone else? I don’t know.” In her statement, Thompson wrote: 

I honestly did not realize I was doing wrong in taking the tomato [plants] 

that were being thrown away. I took 3. I also was not aware that I cannot accept 

a cup of coffee or plants from [a] customer’s garden. I would in no way ever[] do 

wrong to Wal-Mart. I try to save and do as much as I can for the company and 

customers.

I am very sorry and will not accept gifts or anything ever again.

Schmidt stated: 

I received tomato plants from a vendor that were going to be thrown away 

and said that we may have them[.] From what I was told[,] they have done this in 

the past[.] I did not know that we were not allowed to receive gifts from any one. 

I am sorry for what I done and [it] will never happen again[.] My associate done 

this [for] five years and said that the vendor didn’t want to throw away and said it 

was fine sense we don’t pay for them[.] Again I am very sorry[.] I would never 

had done this if I known this[.] I am new in this Dept. [sic throughout]

After interviewing Plaintiffs and taking their written statements, Jenkins turned her 

investigative file over to Theobald. The file included records with Plaintiffs’ dates of birth. In 

his deposition, Theobald could not recall whether he reviewed the file before deciding to 

terminate Plaintiffs’ employment; but he testified that, ordinarily, he does not review the file, 

including written statements, before deciding whether to discipline an employee. Based on 

Plaintiffs’ admissions to taking plants, Theobald considered their conduct as demonstrating 

“compromised integrity,” which, under Walmart’s Coaching for Improvement Policy, can 

qualify as “gross misconduct” and subject the employee to immediate termination. He decided 

to discharge Plaintiffs.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-5-

Jenkins and an assistant store manager met with each Plaintiff to communicate 

Theobald’s decision. Plaintiffs were provided an exit interview form that states the reason for 

the termination as “Gross Misconduct—Integrity Issue.” On Moffat’s form, the manager 

commented: “Chris was identified by Asset protection as receiving gratuity from a vendor which 

is direct violation of the company’s ethics policy.” The manager wrote on Thompson’s form that 

“Clarissa is being terminated due to accepting gifts from a local vendor[;] the gifts were tomato 

plants and were near death but Walmart policy states that no associate working for Walmart will 

accept gifts from a vendor no matter how small.” Schmidt’s exit interview form states that 

“Patricia was accepting flowers from vendors with out [sic] paying for them.”

Walmart discharged Schmidt on June 21, Thompson on June 23, and Moffat on June 28, 

2010. On June 23 and June 29, 2010—the same day it discharged Thompson and one day after it 

discharged Moffat—Walmart hired 19- and 21-year-old temporary associates (both later made 

permanent) “to work the hours that Mr. Moffat and Ms. Thompson would have worked.” 

Walmart did not replace Schmidt; Walmart claimed that because the store had too many 

department managers, it transferred her duties to another department manager who was older 

than Schmidt, but who was later replaced after her retirement by a 26-year-old in August 2010. 

Walmart does not dispute that Plaintiffs were otherwise good employees.

The district court determined that Schmidt could not establish a prima facie case of age 

discrimination because she did not show that Walmart treated substantially younger, similarly 

situated employees better, and concluded that Plaintiffs did not rebut Walmart’s 

nondiscriminatory reason for discharging them and thus could not show pretext. Plaintiffs now 

appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in Walmart’s favor.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-6-

II.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Rudisill v. Ford 

Motor Co., 709 F.3d 595, 600 (6th Cir. 2013). An award of summary judgment is appropriate “if 

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Mitchell v. Fankhauser, 375 F.3d 

477, 479 (6th Cir. 2004). In determining whether the grant of summary judgment was proper, 

“we must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Kleiber v. 

Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 868 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to 

support the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury 

could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995) 

(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

III.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee who is at least 

40 years old because of the employee’s age. 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), 631; Mickey v. Zeidler Tool 

& Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 521 (6th Cir. 2008). Similarly, it is an unlawful discriminatory 

practice in Ohio for an employer to discharge an employee because of the person’s age. Ohio 

Rev. Code § 4112.02(A). Age-discrimination claims brought under Ohio law are analyzed under 

the same standards as claims brought under the ADEA. Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398 F.3d 751, 

763 (6th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff can prove unlawful age discrimination under the ADEA with 

circumstantial evidence—that is, “proof that does not on its face establish discriminatory animus, 

but does allow a factfinder to draw a reasonable inference that discrimination occurred.” Wexler 

v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 2003).
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-7-

A.

A plaintiff without direct evidence of discrimination can establish a prima facie case of 

age discrimination by showing: (1) she was at least 40 years old at the time of the alleged 

discrimination; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) she was otherwise 

qualified for the position; and (4) she was replaced by a younger worker, or there are 

circumstances that support an inference of discrimination. Mickey, 516 F.3d at 521; Blizzard v. 

Marion Technical Coll., 698 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2012); Coomer v. Bethesda Hosp., Inc., 370 

F.3d 499, 511 (6th Cir. 2004). “The key question is always whether, under the particular facts 

and context of the case at hand, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that he or she 

suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances which give rise to an inference of 

unlawful discrimination.” Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 703 (6th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Walmart does not dispute that Moffat and Thompson established a prima facie case of 

age discrimination; however, it argues that although Schmidt can establish the first three 

elements, she cannot show Walmart treated her less favorably than similarly situated employees 

outside the protected class.5 Schmidt contends younger employees (1) had engaged in the same 

 

5

Schmidt does not dispute that she was not replaced—by a younger employee or 

otherwise. But Walmart’s claim that Schmidt failed to prove that the three younger employees 

are outside the protected class is misplaced. An ADEA plaintiff need not show that she was 

treated less favorably than someone outside the protected class. See O’Connor v. Consol. Coin 

Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312–13 (1996) (“The fact that one person in the protected class 

has lost out to another person in the protected class is . . . irrelevant, so long as he has lost out 

because of his age. . . . [T]he fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is 

a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced 

by someone outside the protected class.”). Rather, she must show circumstances that support an 

inference of unlawful age discrimination. Blizzard, 698 F.3d at 283; Clay, 501 F.3d at 703; see 

also Macy v. Hopkins Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 2007) (stating that the 

fourth element requires a showing that a plaintiff “suffered [the adverse employment action] 

under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination”), abrogated on 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-8-

conduct as Plaintiffs without consequence, (2) were disciplined less harshly for more serious 

misconduct, and (3) had accepted items from vendors without discipline. Walmart maintains 

that there is no evidence that the three younger associates Schmidt identified are outside the 

ADEA’s protected class and that the evidence does not support that the younger workers 

accepted plants from a vendor or were subject to discipline or investigation by Theobald. The 

district court concluded that the younger employees were not proper comparators, in part because 

the younger employees did not share the same “ultimate decision-maker” (i.e., Theobold) as 

Schmidt.

Contrary to Walmart’s contention, Schmidt presented a prima facie case of age 

discrimination because the circumstances of her discharge—identical to her co-plaintiffs in all 

relevant respects other than her replacement6—support an inference of age discrimination. The 

evidence shows that Walmart discharged three older employees (ages 54, 59, and 62 years) for 

engaging in the same conduct, leaving the Lawn and Garden Department staffed primarily by 

three significantly younger employees (ages 19, 21, and 23),7and hired two significantly 

 

other grounds by Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012). Such 

circumstances may, but need not, include an allegation that plaintiff was treated less favorably 

than an employee who is at least six years younger. Id. at 283–84; Grosjean v. First Energy 

Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 340 (6th Cir. 2003) (establishing bright-line rule that “an age difference of 

six years or less between an employee and a replacement is not significant”).

6 Although Schmidt was the Lawn and Garden Department Manager, and Moffat’s and 

Thompson’s supervisor, Walmart does not contend that her alleged misconduct was more 

egregious than Moffat’s or Thompson’s.

7 Walmart argued below that Plaintiffs’ representation that the Lawn and Garden 

Department was staffed by five significantly younger employees is factually unsupported. 

Walmart asserted that at least fifteen employees worked in the Lawn and Garden Department, 

relying on an untitled spreadsheet in the record, and that their ages ranged from 19 to 77 years. 

Contrary to Walmart’s argument, Plaintiffs’ contention is supported by record evidence; 

Walmart’s is not. First, Plaintiffs cite Assistant Store Manager Donegan’s deposition, in which 

he was asked to identify on the spreadsheet the employees who “worked primarily in the lawn 

and garden department as opposed to some other department at the Brooklyn Wal-Mart.” 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-9-

younger employees as replacements (ages 19 and 21).8 The composition of the Lawn and 

Garden Department before and after Plaintiffs’ terminations supports an inference of age 

discrimination. We conclude Schmidt satisfied the fourth prong and thus established a prima 

facie case of age discrimination.

B.

Once a plaintiff has satisfied her initial burden, the burden of production shifts to the 

defendant to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse decision. Mickey, 

516 F.3d at 521. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Walmart articulated a legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for its discharge decision—that Plaintiffs violated its policy against 

accepting gifts from suppliers. Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to show that the stated reason 

is pretext for age discrimination. Id. 

1.

To avoid summary judgment, a plaintiff must present evidence from which a jury could 

reasonably find that the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse employment action was not 

the real reason that it discharged her and that unlawful age discrimination was the true reason. 

Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff generally can show that 

the stated reason was not the real reason by showing that it (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not 

actually motivate the adverse employment decision, or (3) was insufficient to motivate discharge. 

 

Donegan identified six individuals, including the Plaintiffs. Second, the spreadsheet alone does 

not support Walmart’s version of the facts because it does not identify the departments of the 

employees listed on it.

8

In its brief, Walmart concedes that it replaced Moffat and Thompson with 19 and 21-

year-olds, although it asserts the two new hires were temporary associates. That the new hires 

were temporary—rather than permanent—does not alter our analysis. See Tuttle v. Metro. Gov’t 

of Nashville, 474 F.3d 307, 318 (6th Cir. 2007) (“In cases where the new hire takes on the 

plaintiff’s former job responsibilities, merely designating the new hire ‘temporary’ will not 

defeat the fourth element.”).
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-10-

Blizzard, 698 F.3d at 285. This first category includes evidence that the employer’s basis for the 

plaintiff’s discharge never happened, and the second category requires the plaintiff to admit the 

factual basis underlying the employer’s proffered reason and further admit that the conduct could 

motivate dismissal. Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am., Inc., 686 F.3d 339, 349 (6th Cir. 2012). “The 

third category of pretext consists of evidence that other employees, particularly employees 

outside the protected class, were not disciplined even though they engaged in substantially 

identical conduct to that which the employer contends motivated its discipline of the plaintiff.” 

Id. This court does not require rigid application of these three criteria; rather, the question is a 

commonsense one: “Did the employer fire the employee for the stated reason or not?” Blizzard, 

698 F.3d at 285. At the summary-judgment stage, the plaintiff need only rebut the employer’s 

proffered rationales to carry her burden; she need not disprove them. Griffin v. Finkbeiner, 689 

F.3d 584, 593 (6th Cir. 2012). Courts should exercise caution in granting summary judgment for 

the defendant once the plaintiff has made a prima facie case and a showing of pretext because 

“an employer’s true motivations are particularly difficult to ascertain, thereby frequently making 

such factual determinations unsuitable for disposition at the summary judgment stage.” Singfield 

v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., 389 F.3d 555, 564 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

Here, Walmart asserts that Theobold discharged Plaintiffs for violating its gifts policy. 

But Walmart does not have a zero-tolerance rule for violations of that policy, since Theobold and 

Jenkins both admitted that they could have allowed Plaintiffs to keep their jobs. And Plaintiffs 

each testified that they did not know they had violated the gifts policy when they took the plants 

home. Thus, Walmart fired the plaintiffs for what was at worst a technical—and seemingly 

innocent—violation of the gifts policy. Given that Walmart’s discipline guidelines encourage 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-11-

managers to try less-draconian measures before firing an associate for any reason, a reasonable 

jury could find that Walmart did not dismiss Plaintiffs for taking the plants. 

Other indicia of pretext appear in the record, though not argued on appeal by Plaintiffs. 

Consistent with his indifferent attitude, Theobald testified that after discharging Plaintiffs, he 

reviewed their files and learned that they alleged younger employees had taken plants in previous 

years, but he did not open an investigation into the allegations or instruct another person to do so. 

Further, Theobald’s decision-making process did not comport with Walmart’s 

Investigation/Suspension Policy.9 Under that policy, Human Resources conducts all 

investigations, except those involving fraud or theft. When theft or fraud is suspected, Asset 

Protection or Corporate Investigations will investigate, not Human Resources. During a theft 

investigation, if Asset Protection determines there simply was no theft or fraud, it will continue 

and complete the investigation; however, if Asset Protection determines that an associate 

violated Walmart policy but did not engage in theft or fraud, as Jenkins and Theobald did here, it 

must consult with Human Resources before discharging the employee. Human Resources, in 

such a case, must approve Asset Protection’s decision to dismiss the employee, after it reviews 

 

9

The parties make no issue over Schmidt’s role as a department manager. Although 

Walmart maintains that “no Walmart salaried member of management had ever given [Plaintiffs] 

permission to take any plants home,” Schmidt (and a prior Lawn and Garden Department 

Manager) tacitly approved the taking of the discarded plants when she also took plants. 

(Emphasis removed.) Walmart suggests only salaried managers, not hourly managers like 

Schmidt, had authority to resolve ethical issues. However, that distinction is at odds with 

Walmart’s written policies. According to Walmart’s written job description for the Lawn and 

Garden Department Manager, an essential function of Schmidt’s duties included supervising 

Lawn and Garden Department employees by “teaching and supporting Company policies and 

procedures [and] ensuring compliance.” The job description also required her to be proficient in 

ethics and compliance. Moreover, if an employee has questions about a gift or an ethical issue, 

Walmart policy instructs him to contact his supervisor or the Ethics Office. A jury might

reasonably find that Walmart’s stated reason for dismissing Moffat and Thompson is pretexual in 

light of a manager’s tacit approval of the alleged misconduct.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-12-

all relevant records. However, Theobald was the sole decision-maker here, as Walmart 

emphasizes, and it appears he did not consult with Human Resources, or seek and receive 

approval to discharge Plaintiffs.10 All of this is evidence from which a jury could reasonably 

conclude that Plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct did not actually motivate Walmart’s decision, and 

thus, Walmart’s proffered rationale was not the real reason for discharging Plaintiffs.

2.

Even if a plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute regarding the 

falsity of the employer’s proffered reasons, the employer is entitled to summary judgment if the 

honest-belief rule applies. Where the employer has an “honest belief” in the nondiscriminatory 

basis on which it has made its adverse employment decision, the employee does not show

pretext. Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard, 692 F.3d 523, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2012). The “key inquiry in 

assessing whether an employer holds such an honest belief is whether the employer made a 

reasonably informed and considered decision before taking the complained-of action.” Michael 

v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 496 F.3d 584, 598–99 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). An employer that reasonably and honestly relies on particularized facts in making an 

adverse employment decision is entitled to summary judgment on pretext, “even if its conclusion 

is later shown to be mistaken, foolish, trivial, or baseless.” Chen, 580 F.3d at 401 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). However, if the plaintiff can show that the employer’s decisional 

 

10 Plaintiffs allege that younger employees had been disciplined less harshly for more 

serious misconduct and that the younger employees are proper comparators. For instance, a 26-

year-old associate was reprimanded for “writting [sic] a bad check and then recieving [sic] a 

payroll advance,” which the supervisor concluded was “like stealing merchandis[e] from the 

store.” Walmart contends, and the district court agreed, that the younger employees were not 

similarly situated to Plaintiffs because they were disciplined by someone other than Theobald. 

The disparity in discipline (and decision maker) is perhaps explainable in part by Theobald’s 

apparent failure to follow Walmart’s Investigation/Suspension Policy in investigating Plaintiffs’ 

alleged policy violations.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-13-

process was “unworthy of credence” by producing “sufficient evidence to establish that the 

employer failed to make a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking its adverse 

employment action,” then the honest-belief defense does not apply. Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 

F.3d 799, 807–08 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Theobald’s own testimony shows that he did not ascertain or know all the relevant 

facts, and that he did not think it important to know such facts before terminating Plaintiffs’ 

employment. The honest-belief defense, therefore, does not apply. In sum, considering the 

totality of the circumstances, a jury could reasonably find that Walmart’s proffered reason for 

discharging Plaintiffs is false.

C.

A plaintiff’s prima facie case, together with evidence showing the employer’s proffered 

reason is false, permits the jury to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination. Reeves v. 

Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147–49 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 

509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993). No additional proof of discrimination is required because “[p]roof 

that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial 

evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.” Reeves, 

530 U.S. at 147; Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511. Judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate in 

cases where, for example, the plaintiff’s prima facie case is not strong or the plaintiff creates 

“only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was 

abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred.” 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-14-

Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148. There is sufficient evidence here, however, to allow a jury to 

reasonably find that Walmart’s decision to discharge Plaintiffs was discriminatory.11

IV.

For these reasons, we REVERSE.

 

11 Plaintiffs assert that certain ageist remarks by a Walmart Senior Executive constitute 

evidence of discriminatory animus, citing an internal memorandum proposing cost-savings 

strategies to employee benefits. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend the memorandum’s linking of its 

aging workforce and higher health-care costs indicates bias. Assuming the memorandum does 

indicate age-related bias, this court evaluates statements allegedly showing an employer’s age 

bias under the following four factors, taking all of the circumstances into account: “(1) whether 

the statements were made by a decision-maker or by an agent within the scope of his 

employment; (2) whether the statements were related to the decision-making process; (3) 

whether the statements were more than merely vague, ambiguous or isolated remarks; and (4) 

whether they were made proximate in time to the act of termination.” Peters v. Lincoln Elec. 

Co., 285 F.3d 456, 478 (6th Cir. 2002). The memorandum fails all four factors. It was drafted in 

2005 by a Senior Executive for Walmart’s Board of Directors, and there is no evidence that 

Theobald read the memorandum at any time before dismissing Plaintiffs.
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-15-

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge, dissenting. I write separately to 

respectfully address two primary points. First, Appellant Schmidt, who was not replaced by a 

younger employee, has not met her prima facie burden to produce evidence raising an inference 

of Wal-Mart’s age discrimination. Second, Appellants, in my view, have not identified anything 

about Theobald’s interpretation and implementation of Wal-Mart’s ethics policy that suggests an 

ageist agenda. I would affirm the district court.

I.

The facts as set forth by the majority are largely uncontroversial. It is worth noting, 

however, that the ultimate decision-maker in this case, Joseph Theobald, was not responsible for 

conducting the initial investigation into the Appellants’ alleged misbehavior. Rather, Theobald’s 

subordinate, Asset Protection Coordinator Debbie Jenkins was. Theobald’s job was to review her 

investigation and reach a personnel decision based on the facts she gathered. Jenkins checked 

with Theobald twice during the investigation: once at its outset, when she viewed security 

footage of Appellants taking inventory from the store without paying for it, and again when her 

investigation was complete. When Theobald learned that Appellants acknowledged receiving the 

merchandise from a vendor, he made the decision to terminate their employment.

II.

A.

Schmidt did not demonstrate a prima facie case of age discrimination. The majority’s 

contention that she did rests primarily on the fact that Schmidt was terminated together with two 

other employees, Moffat and Thompson, as a result of the same plant-taking incident. But that 

conclusion conflates an important distinction between Moffat and Thompson’s prima facie cases 

and Schmidt’s prima facie case. Because Schmidt produced no direct evidence of age 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-16-

discrimination and Schmidt was not replaced by a younger employee, the district court correctly 

concluded that she could not establish disparate treatment inferentially utilizing the McDonnellDouglas burden shifting analysis. 

As the majority correctly emphasizes, the requirement for inferentially establishing a 

prima facie case of age discrimination is not as stringent as that applied by the district court. 

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002) (explaining that the fourth element of a 

prima facie case requires only “circumstances that support an inference of discrimination”). A 

plaintiff need not show she was replaced by a younger employee if she can show circumstances 

that give rise to an inference of age discrimination. The majority, however, then proceeds to 

apply a rule, the authority for which I am unaware, that permits Schmidt to establish a prima 

facie case by simple association. That is, if a plaintiff such as Schmidt is terminated along with 

other employees who can establish a prima facie case—even if they do so only by identifying a 

younger replacement—the plaintiff is entitled to borrow the inference of discrimination that 

arises out of the relative ages of her co-workers and her co-workers’ replacements. This is a new 

rule that incorporates disparate-impact-like reasoning into a disparate treatment case. There are 

several problems with such a rule.

The first problem relates to the deficiency of corroborative evidence justifying 

application of the rule in this case. Schmidt offers nothing analytically to justify associating her 

case with Moffat and Thompson’s cases other than the fact that it arose in the context of the 

plant-taking incident, which she also argues did not actually motivate Wal-Mart’s decision. 

Schmidt has not identified any evidence about the process Wal-Mart employed to hire Moffat 

and Thompson’s replacements that suggest age was at all relevant. Schmidt has not marshaled 

any information about the number of applicants and their ages or the selection method that would 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-17-

suggest age was a discriminating factor. And Schmidt’s only effort to address the subject of age 

at all was to explain in her termination interview that she thought there were younger employees 

who she had heard engaged in similar misconduct but who were not terminated. But, despite the 

availability of discovery Schmidt produced no evidence that the names she identified in the 

termination interview were actually employees, that they were in fact younger employees, that 

they engaged in similar misconduct or that their alleged misconduct was responded to by the 

same decision-maker. That is, in summary, Schmidt offered no admissible evidence that WalMart was discriminating based on age other than observing that two of her co-workers were 

replaced by younger employees.

The second problem with this rule is that deploying this sort-of disparate impact analysis 

into the calculus of the McDonnell-Douglas prima facie case evidentiary framework has no 

express limitation. Is it important that it was two of three employees that were replaced by 

younger workers? Does the piggy-backing plaintiff have any burden of proof concerning the 

circumstances of replacement hires? And how should Wal-Mart’s (or any future defendant’s) 

usual opportunity for rebuttal in disparate-impact analysis be reviewed when employed to satisfy 

the prima facie element of an inference-of-disparate-treatment age discrimination claim? 

Respectfully, proof of the replacement of two out of three employees with younger employees 

does not, without more, justify an inference of disparate age discrimination.

Although I agree the district court erred in applying the wrong standard to Schmidt’s 

prima facie case, I would affirm the result reached by the district court.

B.

The decision to discredit Theobald’s termination of Appellants is more problematic. 

While district courts should hesitate to dispose of a case on summary judgment after a prima 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-18-

facie case has been established, district courts should be equally hesitant to turn the interpretation 

of corporate policy into a question for a civil jury. There is no shortage of authority urging 

caution when it comes to analyzing the internal personnel operations of a corporation when there 

are no indicia, even faint, of discriminatory animus. See, e.g., Haughton v. Orchid Automation, 

206 F. App’x 524, 532 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 585 (6th 

Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Before judgment may be passed on a defendant’s 

employment decision a plaintiff must show that “discrimination was the real reason for the 

adverse employment action.” Haughton, 206 F. App’x at 531-32 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting St. 

Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993)); see also Majewski v. Automatic Data 

Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106, 1116-17 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[An] employee cannot establish that 

the reason [for termination] was pretextual simply because it is ultimately shown to be 

incorrect.”).

That bears emphasizing. Aside from an old corporate memo, which the majority rightly 

discredits, Appellants have not identified any evidence of ageist animus on the part of the WalMart decision-makers at the Brooklyn, Ohio store. And there appears to be no disagreement that 

while the plants at issue had little if any value, Wal-Mart’s ethics rules served important 

purposes—to justify the integrity of their product pricing and to emphasize their employees’ duty 

to protect Wal-Mart’s inventory, particularly the perishable sort. One can see why Wal-Mart 

could face very tangible business risks if it was not disciplined in enforcing these principles, 

even if in a set of circumstances such as this, where inventory of little monetary value is 

involved. Indeed, there is no dispute between the parties that Wal-Mart extensively trained its 

employees, including Appellants, on its ethics policy and ensured its employees, again including 

Appellants, passed a computer-based lesson (“CBL”) demonstrating proficiency in that policy. 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-19-

See Dep. of Christopher Moffat, ECF No. 19-1, Page ID 329-331; Dep. of Clarissa Thompson, 

ECF No. 19-2, Page ID 415-16; Dep. of Patricia Schmidt, ECF No. 19-3, Page ID 502-07. And 

there is also no dispute that the CBL gave examples of gifts and gratuities to include 

“discontinued or no longer used samples and merchandise” and encouraged employees to obtain 

advice if they were unsure of the policy. Moffat Corp. Ethics CBL, ECF No. 19-4, Page ID 584.

Discovery was closed. Appellants produced no additional evidence of ageism. Despite 

this, the suggestion is that Wal-Mart’s decision-makers at its Brooklyn store were sufficiently 

inept that one must, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Appellants, conclude that 

age might have been a motivation for Appellants’ termination. I do not believe Reeves v. 

Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), cited for this proposition, to be 

controlling in this case. The facts of Reeves are inapposite to the facts Appellants have actually 

developed in this case. This dispute is more appropriately governed by Sixth Circuit caselaw 

counseling deference to business judgment. The mere fact Theobald did not gather more 

evidence, instead relying on evidence gathered by a direct subordinate tasked with investigating 

Appellants’ misconduct, does not meet this Court’s standard for proof of pretext.

1.

The majority concludes that the decision-making process utilized by Theobald was so 

deficient that no proof or indicia of age discrimination need be proved by Appellants to survive 

summary judgment. According to the majority, such a deficient process is itself an analog for 

intentional ageist animus. I do not believe that existing legal authority supports that proposition.

Reeves, in my view, requires affirmance. In Abdulnour v. Campbell Soup Supply Co., 

LLC, 502 F.3d 496, 504 (2007), this Court held that under Reeves a plaintiff must make a 

“substantial showing that his employer’s stated reason for terminating him was false.” But 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-20-

because the plaintiff “fail[ed] to adduce any evidence that he was fired for a reason other than 

poor job performance” his case could not survive summary judgment under Reeves. Id. Thus, 

Abdulnour highlights an important point. Reeves demands that a plaintiff demonstrate the falsity

of an employer’s justification for termination, not its mere deficiency. The facts of Reeves alone 

are sufficient to demonstrate this point. Surviving summary judgment requires that “a plaintiff’s 

prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted 

justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully 

discriminated.” 530 U.S. at 148 (emphasis added). 

In Reeves, the employee-petitioner was terminated due to “numerous timekeeping errors 

and misrepresentations on the part of [the petitioner and two of his coworkers.]” Id. 138 (quoting 

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 197 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1999)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). After being terminated, the petitioner, Reeves, filed suit against his 

employer under the ADEA “contending that he had been fired because of his age[.]” Id. The case 

proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for Reeves. The defendant filed a motion for 

judgment as a matter of law that was denied by the district court. The Fifth Circuit reversed.

In reversing, the Fifth Circuit held that “[Reeves] had not introduced sufficient evidence 

to sustain the jury’s finding of unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 139. The Fifth Circuit noted that 

Reeves likely produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate pretext but he did not prove the 

ultimate issue: whether the employer’s decision to terminate was motivated by Reeves’ age. The 

Fifth Circuit reached this conclusion because the evidence of ageism on the part of one of 

Reeves’ supervisors—certain ageist comments—was unrelated to Reeve’s actual termination. 

Reeves did not introduce any evidence that the two other supervisors that participated in his 

termination “were motivated by age[.]” Id. “On this basis, the court concluded that petitioner had 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-21-

not introduced sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that he had been discharged 

because of his age.” Id. at 140.

The Supreme Court disagreed but did so because Reeves “made a substantial showing 

that respondent’s explanation was false.” Id. at 144. The evidence supporting the 

nondiscriminatory explanation for Reeves’ discharge “consisted primarily of testimony by 

Chesnut and Sanderson and documentation of petitioner’s alleged ‘shoddy record keeping.’” Id. 

at 143 (quoting Reeves, 197 F.3d at 692). This evidence purportedly revealed that the area 

Reeves oversaw was very lax, due in part to Reeves “not correctly recording the absences and 

hours of employees.” Id. at 144. The employer-respondent also produced evidence of employees 

that Reeves supervised who committed attendance violations but who went undisciplined by 

Reeves. Ultimately, the employer claimed that Reeves was terminated for falsifying company 

pay records since employees under Reeves’ charge were being paid for hours Reeves failed to 

indicate they did not actually work.

While this explanation established a nondiscriminatory basis on which Reeves was 

terminated, Reeves responded by disproving the respondent’s claims of deficient performance. 

The Supreme Court detailed at length the ways in which Reeves produced evidence that

disproved his former employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Id. at 144-45. Many 

of Reeves’ explanations resulted in concessions by his former supervisor that Reeves’ allegedly 

terminable offenses were actually not offenses at all. Many resulted from assumptions made by 

management when confronted with less-than-clear records. For example, Reeves’ superior 

admitted that the timeclock at the plant often malfunctioned. When it did, a supervisor such as 

Reeves would write in the day’s start time—7 a.m.—as the employee’s arrival time if the 

employee was at his station on time. This undercut the employer’s assertion that an employee 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-22-

who punched in at 7 a.m. could not be at his station by 7 a.m. Thus, Reeves rebutted, with 

admissible evidence, each factual assertion that his employer advanced to justify his termination.

Because of the evidence that petitioner-plaintiff Reeves’ produced that his employer’s 

reasons for terminating him were false, the Supreme Court did away with the requirement that a 

plaintiff show some additional indicia of age discrimination to establish a prima facie case and 

survive summary judgment. The Supreme Court explained, however, that an employer’s 

nondiscriminatory explanation for a plaintiff’s termination must be false if it is to stand in for 

indicia of discrimination. That has also been the law of our Circuit. See, e.g., Shah v. NXP 

Semiconductors USA, Inc., 507 F. App’x 483 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that appellant could not 

establish that the process of hiring her eventual replacement before terminating her proves that 

the employer’s reason for termination was false and that, as a result, she needed to prove 

discriminatory animus); cf. Hale v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 503 F. App’x 323, 335-36 (6th Cir. 

2012) (reversing summary judgment in ADEA case where there was no evidence of ageism but 

there was proof of direct hostility toward the plaintiff by the ultimate decision-maker that was 

not related to stated reason for termination).

One could be critical of Theobald for a number of reasons. While his methods, and his 

decision that the case required termination rather than coaching, may leave something to be 

desired, his explanation demonstrated his ability to distinguish the relevant difference between 

Wal-Mart’s integrity policy and its policy prohibiting employee theft. When asked whether 

employees would violate the gifts policy by retrieving dead plants from the trash without the 

vendor’s knowledge, he answered no. Dep. of Joseph Theobald, ECF No. 20-4, Page ID 1041-

42. When posed a question concerning Appellants’ behavior in this case and whether that 

violated the gifts policy, he answered yes. Id. at 1038-39. When asked why this situation resulted 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-23-

in such a harsh penalty he directed his questioner’s attention to Wal-Mart’s decision to make 

integrity issues an immediately terminable offense. Id. at 1041. His answer comports with what 

he listed as the reason for Appellants’ termination when he initially made the decision: “integrity 

issue.”

While Theobald acknowledged that he did not review the documentary evidence 

available to him about Appellants’ interviews with Jenkins, he did rely upon Appellants’ 

admissions to Jenkins during their investigatory interviews. Appellants admitted during their 

interviews that they asked a vendor if they could take home items which they were responsible 

for overseeing, which is all the information that Wal-Mart’s policy and the law required 

Theobald to rely upon. Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 807 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e do not 

require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone 

unturned.”). Far from leaving numerous stones unturned, Theobald relied on the facts gathered 

by Jenkins, a permissible means of decision-making. See Crabtree v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of 

Homeland Sec., No. 14-3868, 2015 WL 1948267, at *4 (6th Cir. May 1, 2015) (holding that a 

decision-maker’s reliance on reports of misbehavior from subordinates can constitute reasonable 

reliance on particularized facts).

Finally, I do not believe a jury could, without more, conclude that Theobald’s decision 

was actually pretext for age discrimination. As addressed above, proof of the falsity of an 

employer’s proffered reason for termination has always been distinguished from a harsh or 

erroneous application of corporate policy. The law should continue to treat the two differently.

2.

Assuming for sake of argument that Appellants could conceivably rebut Wal-Mart’s 

legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination, that does not end my concern. “Under this 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-24-

circuit’s modified honest-belief doctrine, for an employer to avoid a finding that its claimed 

nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual, the employer must be able to establish its reasonable

reliance on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.” Russell 

v. Univ. of Toledo, 537 F.3d 596, 605 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 

455 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). The 

majority notes that “Theobald’s own testimony shows that he did not ascertain or know all the 

relevant facts[] and that he did not think it important to know such facts before terminating 

Plaintiffs’ employment.” For that reason, the majority concludes, “[t]he honest-belief defense . . . 

does not apply.” 

That, in my view, misapplies the honest belief rule. The honest belief rule asks if the 

reliance by the employer on the “particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision 

was made” was reasonable. Russell, 537 F.3d at 605. Put another way, “the key inquiry is 

whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking an 

adverse employment action.” Smith, 155 F.3d at 807. No evidence adduced by Appellants, or 

identified by the majority would make Theobald’s reliance on the facts before him unreasonable. 

True, he could have gathered more information or undertaken a more deliberate procedure. But 

Appellants admitted, and all parties agree, that they took the plants after asking the vendor if they 

could. See Crabtree, 2015 WL 1948267, at *4 (holding that it is reasonable for a decision maker 

to not directly ascertain facts but instead rely on facts communicated by subordinate 

investigators). Theobald’s reliance on the Appellants’ admissions of culpability was reasonable.

C.

One last point is important. Allowing an ADEA case to proceed to trial with no material 

evidence of age discrimination is particularly concerning because the ADEA does not authorize a 
No. 14-3828, Moffat et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

-25-

mixed-motive jury question. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). This means 

that a reasonable juror must conclude not only that Wal-Mart possessed some ageist animus in 

arriving at its termination decision, but that the decision to terminate was predicated only on 

Appellants’ age. How any reasonable juror could do so in a case where the plaintiffs have 

admitted to committing the offending conduct and the plaintiffs have marshaled virtually no 

evidence that the plaintiffs’ ages were Wal-Mart’s guiding criteria is puzzling.

III.

Respectfully, I would affirm the district court’s conclusion that Appellants “have not 

supplied evidence by which the fact finder might reasonably infer the existence of a 

discriminatory motive.” August 1, 2014 Opinion & Order 17, ECF No. 36, Page ID 2091.