Opinion ID: 6112809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prima Facie Case for Retaliation

Text: First, Bush must establish her prima facie case for retaliation. To do so, she must show that “(1) she engaged in activity protected under Title VII; (2) [ProMedica] knew that she exercised her protected rights; (3) an adverse employment action was subsequently taken against her; and 3 Because Ohio courts apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to discrimination claims, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to ProMedica on Bush’s state-law discrimination claim. See Cline v. Cath. Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651, 668 (6th Cir. 2000). 8 No. 21-3444, Bush v. ProMedica Toledo Hosp. (4) [Bush’s] protected activity was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.” Kenney v. Aspen Techs., Inc., 965 F.3d 443, 448 (6th Cir. 2020). The parties contest only the fourth element—that Bush’s complaints caused her termination. Bush’s argument relies on temporal proximity alone to establish but-for causation between her complaints and her termination. But we require more evidence than temporal proximity to support an inference of but-for causation. Id. at 448–49; Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2000) (“[T]emporal proximity alone will not support an inference of retaliatory discrimination when there is no other compelling evidence.” (quotation omitted)). While we allow for exceptions to this rule, they “are rare, even in instances involving relatively short time periods.” Kenney, 965 F.3d at 449 (quotation omitted). Here, other than temporal proximity, there is no evidence that Bush’s complaints were butfor causes of her termination. Bush submitted three complaints, one in the form of an e-mail to Sullivan (with Steinmiller allegedly copied) on June 30th, and two as oral complaints to Steinmiller on July 27th and October 3rd during meetings that ProMedica supervisors initiated to reprimand Bush for behavioral issues. The record does not support an inference that Bush’s complaints caused her termination. Bush has pointed to no evidence other than temporal proximity that Steinmiller fired her because of these complaints. In fact, Steinmiller’s conduct shows that he wanted Bush to get the proper assistance in resolving her concerns about her civil rights. As the district court noted, and as Bush does not dispute, Steinmiller encouraged Bush to contact HR to voice her concerns, which cuts against the inference that Steinmiller terminated her employment because of her complaints. See Kinney, 965 F.3d at 449 (dismissing a retaliation claim when “[a]ll things considered, there [wa]s nothing unusually suggestive about the timing of [] termination”) (quoting MacDonald v. United 9 No. 21-3444, Bush v. ProMedica Toledo Hosp. Parcel Serv., 430 F. App’x 453, 465–66 (6th Cir. 2011)). Bush has failed to establish her prima facie case for retaliation, and we therefore need not address her claims of pretext.4