Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Brewer’s EEOC inquiry questionnaire insufficient to trigger an EEOC response, (Sep 5, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

His inquiry questionnaire did not invoke EEOC remediation of his failure-to-accommodate claim, and thus he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to this claim.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the ADA, Title VII, and state-law claims asserted by a former brewer at Bell’s Brewery, the Sixth Circuit found he had failed to exhaust or timely exhaust his administrative remedies for certain claims, and that for other claims, he lacked evidence to establish pretext. The claims stemmed in part from a back injury the employee suffered at work, after which he was put on light duty until he was cleared to work without restrictions. After leaving his position, he completed an EEOC inquiry questionnaire, but failed to actually make a formal charge of a failure to accommodate, and such a claim could not reasonably relate to or grow out of the facts alleged in the questionnaire (Pemberton v. Bell’s Brewery, Inc., No. 24-1518 (6th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025)).

In March 2002, the employee was hired as packager. He eventually worked his way up to senior brewer in 2012, a position that can be physically demanding and requires the frequent lifting and moving of heavy objects.

Back injury. These lifting requirements led the employee to injure his back in December 2018. Several physical restrictions were placed on his work. The brewery initially assigned him to light duty, which eventually ran out. It declined his offer of creating a “field marketing research specialist” specifically for him. The employee was placed on leave from March to May 2019.

In mid-May, the employee accepted an offer to take part in the brewery’s “transitional work program,” through which he was paid full-time wages while working for a nonprofit partner. He returned to his position in October 2019 after some of his duties were shifted to other employees. He was cleared to work without restrictions the following month.

Performance review. Months before the employee had suffered his back injury, the brewery installed a new shift lead who oversaw the employee’s performance. His first employment review of the employee was unfavorable, leading the employee to complain to HR in February 2019. When HR investigated the complaint, it discovered the shift lead had disparaged the employee’s back condition. The shift lead was fired in March 2019 at the close of the investigation.

Investigation. In May 2021, the employee became the subject of another investigation. He had allegedly made inappropriate comments to a coworker, a Marine Corps veteran who struggled with suicidal ideation, asking him about his “kill count” and how much money his family would receive were he to end his life. As this investigation was unfolding, another coworker came forward alleging that the employee had made a sexually inappropriate comment about a colleague. He was also implicated in date rape allegations made by a coworker against others at the brewery. The employee was suspended without pay.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, the employee was presented with the choice of signing a “last chance” agreement or taking a severance package that would pay him his salary for nine months. He negotiated the severance package up to a full year but ultimately rejected the offer and chose not to return to work.

EEOC. Subsequently, the employee filed an inquiry questionnaire with the EEOC. He later filed a formal charge of discrimination. After receiving a right to sue letter, the employee filed this lawsuit on August 12, 2022. He asserted claims under the ADA, Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), and Title VII. The district court granted the brewery’s motion for summary judgement against all claims, leading to this appeal.

Failure to accommodate. First, the court addressed the employee’s claim for failure to accommodate. The brewery sought summary judgment based on the employee’s failure to explicitly mention this claim in his EEOC charge and his failure to bring the claim in a timely fashion. The district court rejected the first argument but accepted the second. The appellate court agreed with the brewery that the employee’s omission of a failure-to-accommodate claim in his charge was fatal to this claim. It also agreed that, in any event, the charge was untimely.

Exhaustion. Addressing the question of whether the employee had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his failure-to-accommodate claim, the court found that he did not do enough to meet this procedural requirement.

First, explained the court, the employee did not explicitly file this claim with the EEOC. The district court acknowledged as much, stating that the “Amended Charge contained no mention of a failure to accommodate” claim.

Second, this claim did not reasonably relate to or grow out of the facts alleged in the charge. The only portions of the charge that arguably suggested facts for this claim were his statements that he was: (1) “put on light duty in or around October 2019 as a result from this injury and was sent home until [he] was completely recovered;” and (2) denied a particular new position because he was “not hungry enough” and lacked “a four-year degree.” These limited statements were insufficient to prompt the EEOC or to sufficiently notify it to investigate a different, uncharged failure-to-accommodate claim. If anything, they suggested that the brewery made reasonable efforts to accommodate the employee, said the court.

Holowecki. In response, the employee argued that his accommodation claim was “reasonably expected to be part of” his charge because it “arises out of the same core discrimination.” The court was not convinced, finding this position to be a misstatement of the law that unduly relaxes the exhaustion requirement.

The court’s analysis did not change when it considered Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). While Holowecki recognizes that a wide range of documents may be classified as charges, it still has its limits, explained the court. “It does not direct that we ignore the EEOC’s administrative scheme.”

In this instance, the employee’s inquiry questionnaire can be a charge if: (1) it is submitted under oath or penalty of perjury; (2) it contains information that is sufficiently precise to describe the actions complained of; and (3) it complies with Holowecki. The court found the employee had failed to meet any of these requirements.

Addressing the requirements in reverse order, the court determined that although Holowecki broadens the traditional “explicitly file or reasonably grow out of” rule for exhausting administrative remedies by liberalizing the definition of a “charge,” it still imposes an additional requirement—the filing must invoke the EEOC’s remedial processes.

Process not invoked. Here, the court found that the employee had failed to invoke the EEOC’s authority to address the claim. The language in the questionnaire described the employee’s treatment compared to other employees, including allegations that other injured employees had new positions created for them, but nowhere did it actually request that the EEOC invoke its process to remediate the brewery’s conduct, said the court. Further, the questionnaire expressly disclaims that it is a charge and instead emphasizes that employees must take the additional step of filing a charge of discrimination.

In Holowecki, the Supreme Court construed the plaintiff’s intake questionnaire as a charge because the plaintiff had attached an affidavit urging the EEOC to take action. She also gave consent to the agency to disclose her identity to her employer. Without the affidavit, the Court noted that it “might agree” that the intake questionnaire’s “statements do not request action.”

Unlike the filing in Holowecki, an objective observer would not view the employee’s vague references to prior accommodations, whether granted to him or his coworkers, as a request for the EEOC to activate its remedial processes, said the court. There was no call to action or request for the agency to act, and thus the employee did not trigger an EEOC response related to his failure-to-accommodate claim.

Unverified. Even if the court were to conclude otherwise, the filing was still unverified. Although a second verified and timely charge can amend a plaintiff’s first filing, the employee failed to do so here, observed the court, noting that his charge of discrimination did not incorporate the facts stated in his inquiry questionnaire.

Specificity. The questionnaire also failed to meet the EEOC’s specificity requirements, as it did not describe with enough precision the action or practices relating to the brewery’s failure to accommodate his back injury. Accordingly, the employee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his failure-to-accommodate claim, and the grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

Retaliation, discrimination. Turning to the employee’s claims for retaliation and discrimination, the court found that he had failed to establish a prima facie case. The employee contended that he engaged in protected activity when: (1) “he served as a witness to details of sexual assault and harassment claims by his colleagues;” and (2) “he complained to HR about a performance review that was not conducted per [company] policy, and based upon disability discrimination.” He argued that the adverse action was his suspension.

His first claim failed because serving as a witness in sexual assault and harassment proceedings is not a protected activity under the ADA. The second claim failed for lack of a causal connection and was not temporally proximate to the alleged adverse action.

As to pretext, the employee claimed that the brewery’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the suspension—his inappropriate comments toward his Marine Corps coworker—was pretextual because the coworker was allegedly not intimidated by the employee, purportedly calling him a “big teddy bear.” However, the court found this argument lacked evidentiary support.

State-law claims. Next, the court considered the employee’s claims for failure to accommodate, retaliation, and discrimination under the Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). The court found the discrimination and retaliation claims failed for the same reasons as those claims did under the ADA.

As to the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court noted that the PWDCRA does not share the ADA’s exhaustion requirement and has a three-year statute of limitations. Here, the court found that the employee had failed to make his prima facie case, noting that the employee could not perform the essential duties of his position with or without accommodation from March 2019 to November 2019, and the accommodations he received after August 2019 exceeded the brewery’s obligations under state law. As such, the grant of summary judgment against this claim was affirmed.

ELCRA. Turning to the employee’s age discrimination claim under the ELCRA, the court found no evidence demonstrating that age was a motivating factor in the brewery’s decision not to promote him. A technical brewer position was awarded to another worker who held a bachelor’s degree in beverage science, and a sales position was awarded to a worker with distribution experience. The employee possessed neither. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment against this claim was also affirmed.

Title VII. Finally, the court found it did not need to examine whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims because the employee forfeited the challenge.

The case is No. 24-1518.

Judge: Bush, J.

Attorneys: Carla D. Aikens (Law Offices of Carla D. Aikens) for Jay Pemberton. Aaron D. Lindstrom (Barnes & Thornburg) for Bell's Brewery, Inc.

Companies: Bell's Brewery, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Procedure Retaliation StateLawClaims KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews