Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—6th Cir.: University’s HR director, fired for departmental shortcomings, fails to revive claims, (Jan 23, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

There was “plenty of evidence that she failed in her responsibilities on her own,” and thus the court could not discern any evidence of pretext.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former chief human resource officer for the University of Toledo, the Sixth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, found that although the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination, she failed to show that the university’s decision to terminate her employment was pretextual. Her department was plagued by failures in its core responsibilities, while her proffered comparator had failed a single quality assessment and, after being placed on a PIP, had swiftly improved. As to her retaliation claim, the employee’s initial complaint never mentioned anything about hiring practices or anything else, and as such the university was not on notice she was asserting a claim for retaliation (Davis v. University of Toledo, No. 25-3296 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026, unpublished)).

The employee in this case is a Black woman who worked in the university’s HR department for five years. She first served as director of human resources for academic administration and student services, eventually working her way up to chief human resource officer, a position that left her managing the entire department.

Shortcomings. At some point, the HR department and other departments faced financial challenges. These budgetary issues highlighted problems within the HR department. For example, it was discovered that the HR department was not complying with federal immigration laws. The employee came up with a solution, suggesting that the university expand its use of Intellicorp, a background check vendor, to process and review I-9s. The university began using this program after the employee was terminated.

Another issue concerned the HR department’s renegotiation of the university’s collective bargaining agreement with its security personnel. A direct subordinate of the employee took over negotiations and claimed the final cost of the CBA was within financial parameters. It was not. Although the union agreed to renegotiate, the revised CBA was out of line with other CBAs. The employee’s supervisor took issue with the “proposed economics” in a curt email.

The university also uncovered inadequacies with its FMLA compliance and the failure to fill positions at its medical center. Adding to its problems, four out of seven of the employee’s direct reports left their positions in just over one year.

External review. After this series of failures, the employee’s supervisor told her that the university intended to conduct an external review of the department’s operations. A previous external assessment of the university’s auditing department found that it had failed to “generally conform” to standards. That department’s head, a white man, also reported to the employee’s supervisor. The auditing department head was placed on a PIP and he showed improvement. As such, he retained his position.

Resignation threat. The issues with the HR department came to a head when the employee told her supervisor that she was considering resigning. She also told her supervisor that she “wanted to stick in there.” Regardless, the supervisor considered the resignation comment to be a “pretty big deal”, and he resolved to terminate her. Eventually, he hired a white man to take over as chief human resources officer at a higher salary than what was being paid to the employee. The employee was then fired.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee filed an administrative charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission asserting charges of discrimination. After receiving a letter of determination, she filed this lawsuit, alleging Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims. The district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, failing to find evidence of pretext. This appeal followed.

Sabotage? First, the court considered the employee’s discrimination claims. The university conceded that she had made her prima facie case and articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her. Thus, this case revolved around pretext.

According to the employee, her supervisor and the university sabotaged her job performance by withholding money and by stonewalling her proposals. However, the court found the evidence did not bear this assertion out.

The university had cut the HR budget for four or five years prior to the employee’s termination, explaining that declining enrollment was behind its budgetary decisions. The university was tightening its belt, and the employee could not adduce any evidence that it was targeting her and the HR department by starving it of resources.

Suggestions not implemented. Another issue raised by the employee was the fact that she raised the idea of outsourcing I-9 processing and changing the FMLA system, ideas that her supervisor purportedly rejected to manufacture her removal. She mostly focused on the I-9 suggestion because the university ultimately adopted it. However, the court noted that the university hired her to modernize HR through decisive action—not just to present occasional ideas. The employee’s “focus on the I-9 recommendation ignores the cascade of unforced errors she committed in her role and her failure to fulfill core job requirement,” said the court.

Ideas aside, the court found that the employee’s performance left much to be desired, highlighting the department’s panoply of shortcomings. As such, she failed to show that the university’s actions were motivated by pretext.

Comparator. Next, the court considered the employee’s proffered comparator, the head of the university’s auditing department. The court acknowledged that as the head of a department who also reported to the employee’s supervisor, the two occupied similar roles. However, the court found that the auditing department head did not engage in the same conduct as the employee and thus was not a proper comparator.

The auditing department failed a single quality assessment, a result that led to a stern reprimand of the department head and his placement on a PIP. The department head quickly improved performance.

As to the HR department, it had failed two audits, along with the CBA fiasco, the issues with staff at the university’s medical center, and the fact the four of the employee’s direct reports left the department in little over a year. “There’s just no comparison,” said the court.

In addition, the court determined that university policy did not require a PIP before terminating at-will employees, and thus it did not violate its disciplinary policy in failing to place the employee on a PIP. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the discrimination claims was affirmed.

Retaliation. Finally, the court considered the employee’s claim for retaliation, an allegation that was not mentioned in her original or amended charges. She alleged later that her supervisor retaliated against her for documenting his alleged deficiencies in hiring “minorities and females,” but that was only in a subsequent position statement to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. She did not argue that the statement amended her charges, only that the retaliation claim grew out of her charges. The court disagreed.

Neither charge mentioned the employee’s documentation of discriminatory hiring practices or any discussion she had with her supervisor on that topic, observed the court. As such, she had failed to administratively exhaust these claims and the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim was also affirmed.

The case is No. 25-3296.

Judge: Nalbandian, J.

Attorneys: Norman A. Abood (Law Offices of Norman A. Abood) for Wendy F. Davis. Drew C. Piersall (Littler Mendelson) for University of Toledo.

Companies: University of Toledo

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews