Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Manager discharged after searching employee’s bag without permission may not proceed to trial, (Mar 24, 2026)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The manager’s evidence that he was fired because he had experienced a stroke was insufficient.

A discharged restaurant manager failed to raise a material fact issue concerning whether his employer’s reason for firing him was a pretext for disability discrimination, the Sixth Circuit has ruled in an unpublished opinion, affirming summary judgment for the employer (Bergens v. Diverse Concepts, LLC, No. 25-5169 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026, unpublished)).

A discharged general manager of a new restaurant that was about to open brought suit against his former employer, a hospitality-management group, asserting claims of disability discrimination under the ADA and parallel Tennessee law. The summary judgment evidence showed that three days after being promoted to this position, the employee suffered a stroke that caused him to miss two weeks of work. The employer continued to pay him during his absence, even though he had not accrued any paid leave. When he returned to work, the employer allowed him to arrive late or leave early for physical therapy appointments. As the weeks passed, however, the employer became concerned about the pace of his recovery and his ability to perform the responsibilities of his job, especially employee training.

Moonshine prank. Approximately two months after the employee’s stroke, an assistant manager (AM1) attempted to play a joke on the employee by hiding two bottles of moonshine the employee had requested in the employee’s office. The AM1 then pranked the employee by telling him that he had given the moonshine to a fellow assistant manager (AM2). The employee went to AM2’s unoccupied office and searched for the moonshine, opening AM2’s partially unzipped bag in the process. He “frisked” the bag and then put his hand inside. These actions were recorded on security camera footage.

Privacy complaint. Later on, AM1 told AM2 that the employee had searched her bag. Feeling that her privacy had been invaded, AM2 reported the incident the next day. Two upper-level executives reviewed the video footage, which they believed revealed a “clear lack of judgment and a lack of character.” When they asked the employee about the incident, the employee denied searching AM2’s bag. When told about the video evidence, however, he backpedaled and tried to explain the “joke.” Believing that the employee’s initial denial was a lie, the executives fired the employee toward the end of the conversation.

The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the employee timely appealed.

Disability discrimination. The employee claimed that the employer had discharged him not because of the moonshine incident, but because of concerns that he would not be able to handle opening the new restaurant after his stroke. Thus, the issue on appeal was whether the employee had sufficiently demonstrated pretext to create a jury question.

The Sixth Circuit noted that plaintiffs typically show pretext in one of three ways: with evidence (1) that the proffered reason(s) had no basis in fact; (2) that the proffered reason(s) did not actually motivate the employer’s action; or (3) that the proffered reason(s) were insufficient to motivate the employer’s action. The employee offered arguments under the first and third categories, as well as other evidence of pretext.

Pretext—no factual basis. This argument failed in light of the video footage and the undisputed testimony, which showed that the employee had in fact searched AM2’s bag without permission and had initially denied doing so. The employer was under no obligation to conduct a more thorough investigation when the undisputed evidence established that the executives viewed the employee’s misconduct on video, were informed that AM2 was upset, questioned the employee about the incident, and fired the employee after receiving an inaccurate response.

Pretext—insufficient comparator evidence. The employee identified three other employees who had engaged in misconduct but not been discharged. The court determined, however, that the comparators were not similarly situated to the employee “all relevant respects,” as was required by the caselaw. They either had a different supervisor than the employee or engaged in dissimilar conduct—a sexual relationship with a subordinate, depicting male genitals with vegetables, and dumping beer bottle caps into a coworker’s backpack.

Pretext—insufficient circumstantial evidence. The court then held that alone or combined, the employee’s other circumstantial evidence yielded the same result: the employee could not show a genuine dispute about pretext under Sixth Circuit caselaw.

For these reasons, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer.

The case is No. 25-5169.

Judge: Hermandorfer, W.

Attorneys: Adam W. Hansen (CrossCastle) and David A. Burkhalter, II (The Burkhalter Law Firm) for Mark F. Bergens. Brandon Layne Morrow (Kramer Rayson) for Diverse Concepts, LLC, Island Amenities, LLC and Smoky Mountain Blue Moose, LLC.

Companies: Diverse Concepts, LLC; Island Amenities, LLC; Smoky Mountain Blue Moose, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Privacy KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews