HR manager’s bias concerns weren’t the basis for her firing, 6th Circuit finds

Summary

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that a former University of Toledo HR director failed to prove she was fired in retaliation for raising concerns about an allegedly unlawful promotion. The plaintiff said she objected because the role hadn’t been advertised and might violate OFCCP requirements and equal employment laws. After notifying colleagues, she was demoted and terminated four months later. The university maintained it dismissed her for attendance, mentorship and performance issues. The courts found the four-month gap and lack of other supporting evidence meant she could not show causation.

Key Points

The plaintiff alleged retaliation under Title VII after opposing a promotion she believed violated hiring rules.
The university cited poor attendance, lack of mentorship for trainees and incomplete projects as reasons for dismissal.
The 6th Circuit agreed a four-month delay between protected activity and firing was “too long” to prove causation absent other evidence.
A probable-cause finding from Ohio’s Civil Rights Commission was given little weight by the federal courts because it focused mainly on other employees’ claims.
The decision reinforces that temporal proximity alone—especially after several months—is often insufficient to establish retaliation without additional supporting evidence.

Context and relevance

This ruling matters for HR professionals and employers: it highlights how courts assess retaliation claims and the importance of documenting performance issues and timelines. For HR staff who raise legal or compliance concerns, the decision is a reminder that timing helps but usually isn’t enough—contemporaneous records, follow-up communications and other corroborating evidence strengthen a claim. The case sits alongside other recent matters where outcomes turned on differing facts and evidence rather than the mere fact of having raised concerns.

Author style

Punchy: short, clear and practical — this is a court ruling that tells HR teams what to watch for when escalation or retaliation claims follow internal objections.

Why should I read this

If you work in HR, legal or line management, read this to avoid the rookie mistake of assuming a complaint automatically proves retaliation. It explains why a four-month gap eats into causation arguments and why you should keep neat records, emails and performance notes so both sides are clear if things end up in court.