Opinion ID: 810836
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment on Discrimination Claims

Text: We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Rd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790, 794 (6th Cir. 2012). To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the job, (3) he suffered an adverse employment decision, and (4) he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees. Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d -5- No. 10-2126 Owhor v. St. John Health-Providence 587, 603 (6th Cir. 2008).2 If a plaintiff sets forth a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Id. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must show that the reasons offered by the employer were a pretext for discrimination. Id. Even assuming Owhor met his prima facie case, Owhor has failed to demonstrate pretext. A plaintiff can demonstrate pretext by showing the reason offered by the employer: (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct; or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct. Romans v. Mich. Dept. of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826, 839 (6th Cir. 2012). Owhor argues that he was not actually sleeping and, therefore, Providence Hospital’s stated reason had no basis in fact. A defendant can overcome a plaintiff’s accusation of prextext if it is “able to establish its reasonable reliance on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.” Id. Owhor argues, and is correct, that this Circuit’s test is different than the Seventh Circuit’s “bare honest belief rule.” Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). In this Circuit, “the key inquiry is whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking an adverse employment action.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 807 (6th Cir. 1998)). Providence Hospital undertook a reasonable investigation before terminating Owhor for sleeping or the appearance of sleeping. Worklife Services made the recommendation for termination 2 The district court held the only adverse employment action Owhor demonstrated was his termination. Owhor has not appealed this determination. -6- No. 10-2126 Owhor v. St. John Health-Providence based on the statements of Taube, who was present in surgery with Owhor, and Jacobs, the operating room manager. Bass testified that the decision to terminate was based more generally on an investigation by Eckstein that included conversations with everyone present. Eckstein testified that she spoke with Jacbos and Owhor about the incident and Jacobs got statements from everyone in the room.3 In addition, immediately after the incident, Owhor was tested to determine if he was having a medical emergency. This Circuit does “not require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned.” Wright, 455 F.3d at 708. Based on the testimony of the employees who witnessed Owhor during the surgery and the lack of medical explanation for the occurrence, Providence Hospital made a reasonably informed and considered decision that termination was appropriate. The district court was correct to grant Providence Hospital summary judgment on Owhor’s discrimination claims.