Opinion ID: 4514973
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Previous Disciplinary Conduct

Text: This leaves only Willard’s previous disciplinary history, and he points to evidence demonstrating that his previous disciplines did not actually factor into the decision to terminate him. Willard’s formal disciplinary history is temporally distant from his termination. It is undisputed that Willard’s last formal discipline occurred nearly four years before, in 2012, his suspension and termination in 2016. See Vincent v. Brewer Co., 514 F.3d 489, 499 (6th Cir. 2007) (concluding that a five- or six-week delay between the employer’s adverse action and the last of the employee’s “alleged instances of misconduct” was indicative of pretext in a Title VII case). And in the light most favorable to Willard, the 2014 discussion about Willard’s interactions with support staff was not a formal discipline, but an informal coaching or conversation. Willard’s formal disciplinary record is thin, considering that it covers more than a ten-year period. This evidence demonstrates that Huntington Ford’s final legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Willard was not the real motivation for the discharge. 11Huntington Ford invokes the honest-belief rule in passing in its appellate brief, arguing that Willard cannot show that his suspension for the December 21, 2016 incident and termination the following week lacked a basis in fact or that Willard’s conduct was insufficient motivation to discharge Willard. Appellee Br. at 33, 36–37. Huntington Ford forfeited its honest-belief arguments because it did not present them to the district court. Tuttle, 474 F.3d at 319 n.11 (citing Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 1993)); see also R. 16 (Mot. for Summary J.); R. 20 (Reply). No. 19-1763 Willard v. Huntington Ford, Inc. Page 19 Huntington Ford argues that Willard had ongoing issues with support staff, Appellee Br. at 7, 14, but it is undisputed that these instances did not result in formal discipline. Moreover, Willard testified that any of his interpersonal tiffs, including with Duley, were not beyond “normal activity.” R. 16-2 (Willard Dep. at 111) (Page ID #126). Crucially, the record shows that a dealership is a high-anxiety, stressful place to be that at times results in friction among employees, leading to discussions with management. But there is nothing in the record that shows that Willard’s interpersonal conduct rose to a disciplinary level, except what actually resulted in formal discipline.