Sixth Circuit· 8/14/2009

Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co.

Citations

576 F.3d 576
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18137
92 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,659
106 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697
2009 WL 2475375

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that there was pretext when “two of Ford’s four proffered reasons for terminating Upshaw ... do not typically warrant any formal discipline at Ford’s Sharonville plant, let alone termination”
noting that an employer’s solicitation of information from other employees about the plaintiff can be construed as heightened scrutiny, which is evidence of retaliatory motive
noting that the defendant’s ability to meet this burden “does not involve a credibility assessment” and “is satisfied if he simply ‘explains what he has done.’” (citation omitted)
finding that a later-discovered mistake in the data upon which employer relied in taking an employment action did not demonstrate pretext where employer honestly believed, based on facts before it at the time, that the data supported its action
finding that the close temporal proximity between plaintiffs August 2003 EEOC charge and employer’s gathering of documentation to fire plaintiff in fall 2003 sufficient to establish “the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
finding that a later-discovered mistake in the data on which employer relief in taking an employment action does not constitute pretext where the employer honestly believed, based on the facts before it at the time, that the data supported its action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Batchelder, Cole, Sutton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

53 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.