Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Abbott v. Crown Motor Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

September 11, 2003, Argued ; November 3, 2003, Decided ; November 3, 2003, Filed

No. 02-3365

Opinion

 [*539]   [***2]  KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment to his former employer, defendant Crown Motor Company, Inc. ("Crown"), on his claims of illegal retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02 and of intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Ohio common law. For the reasons explained below, we REVERSE the district court's award of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's federal and state claims of illegal retaliation, AFFIRM summary [**2]  judgment to defendant on plaintiff's state claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

] We review the district court's order granting summary judgment de novo. Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1999). ] Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We must accept the non-moving party's evidence, and draw all justifiable inferences in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). A "material" fact is one "that might affect the outcome of the suit." Id. at 248. A "genuine" issue exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.  [***3]  

I. Illegal Retaliation Claims

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

348 F.3d 537 *; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22559 **; 2003 FED App. 0388P (6th Cir.) ***; 92 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1595

DONALD ABBOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROWN MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Subsequent History: Rehearing, en banc, denied by Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1948 (6th Cir., Jan. 21, 2004)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 99-01275. George C. Smith, District Judge.

Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CORE TERMS

summary judgment, retaliation, unlawful retaliation, termination, fired, lift, prima facie case, protected activity, proffered, intentional infliction of emotional distress, protects, employment action, plaintiff's claim, adverse action, district court, material fact, non-discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing, repaired, genuine, pretext

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Supporting Materials, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Record on Appeal, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Retaliation, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Title VII Discrimination, Business & Corporate Compliance, Unfair Labor Practices, Employer Violations, Interference With Protected Activities, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Torts, Intentional Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress