Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—6th Cir.: Female warehouse clerk fired in workforce reduction gets second shot at gender bias, equal pay claims, (Jul 21, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

During her 25-year career with the company, the employee had a near perfect attendance record and consistently received positive reviews.

While a female warehouse logistics clerk for a global provider of sustainable solutions for the plastics industry, who was fired as part of a workforce reduction after a 25-year career, failed to convince the Sixth Circuit to revive her age discrimination claim, the court reversed summary judgment on her Title VII sex discrimination claim. She presented sufficient evidence that she was similarly situated to a male coworker who was not fired, that she was singled out for termination based on her gender, and that the company’s proffered reason for firing her, her inferior skill set, was pretextual. The court also reversed summary judgment on her Equal Pay Act claim (Hayes v. Clariant Plastics & Coatings USA, Inc., No. 24-1336 (6th Cir. July 18, 2025)).

Hired in 1993 as a warehouse logistics clerk, and promoted to senior logistics clerk in 2015, the employee was responsible for production reporting, material picks, shipping paperwork, and certificates of analysis, as well as handling materials by operating a forklift. Although she obtained a forklift license, she let it lapse because she was never asked to use a forklift or to renew her license.

Workforce reduction. In 2017, the company sent its warehouse employees for training on SAP, a new computer software system. About a year later, it implemented a workforce reduction to return the company to pre-SAP cost levels. The plant manager decided the warehouse department, which consisted of five workers including the employee, the only woman, should be reduced by one person.

Evaluate there. In February 2018, the regional HR partner sent the manufacturing director a list of individuals preselected for termination that included the employee. She also noted that the employee’s male coworker had less seniority “so we need to exhibit the skill/performance issues” with the employee. The manufacturing director then told the HR partner that the employee had a “rough time” during the SAP training and to “evaluate there.” Around that same time, her direct supervisor completed her performance review in which he gave her a score that tied for highest in the department.

Termination. A few days later, the HR partner finalized the employee’s severance agreement, which was approved by the manufacturing director. The HR partner also included a rating sheet that gave the employee the lowest score on her team. She was fired two days later.

Lower court proceedings. She ultimately sued, asserting claims under the ADEA, Title VII, and the EPA and the district court granted summary judgment to her employer on all claims.

Age discrimination. Affirming summary judgment on the employee’s age discrimination claim, the Sixth Circuit found she failed to show she was replaced by someone substantially younger or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated coworker under the age of 40. She pointed to her male coworker, but he was 46 years old at the time of the employee’s termination and thus was a member of the protected class.

Gender discrimination. As to her gender discrimination claim, the district court found the male coworker was not similarly situated to the employee because he had production experience, a forklift license, and supervisory skills. However, the appeals court observed, both employees held nonmanagerial warehouse jobs that did not require production or management skills.

And while the company argued that the coworker’s production manager experience made him versatile and thus more valuable, he had been demoted from his production manager job and placed on a performance improvement plan. Moreover, as a production manager, he often could not be found and struggled to recognize safety hazards, the court stated, noting that a reasonable jury could find that his production management experience did not set him apart from the employee.

As for the forklift license, the evidence showed the employee could operate a forklift but was never required to do so. The company also pointed to the coworker’s “superior” SAP skills. But while her supervisor wrote in her performance review that the employee needed “to learn the inbound side of SAP,” and to “comprehend all aspects of the SAP world,” he also noted that the coworker needed “further training on some Inbound receiving and troubleshooting shipping picks.” In addition, the employee received a higher overall score on her performance evaluation than her coworker.

The appeals court also pointed out that the employee and coworker were both warehouse employees with similar job duties, they both reported to the same manager, and both were subject to the same work standards. Accordingly, said the court, a reasonable jury could conclude that they were similarly situated in all relevant aspects of their warehouse jobs.

Impermissible reasons. The court next found the employee presented sufficient evidence to show she was fired for impermissible reasons. Not only did she have a near-perfect attendance record during her 25-year career, she also consistently received positive performance reviews. Her coworker, however, had been fired from one prior job and placed on a PIP at another. During his time with the company, he struggled as a production manager, he was placed on a PIP, and he was ultimately moved to the warehouse where he had less than a year of experience at the time of the workforce reduction. Thus, the employee established a factual dispute over whether she was singled out for termination based on her gender.

Discriminatory atmosphere. There was also evidence that during her tenure with the company, her male coworkers made numerous unwelcome sexual advances and remarks to her, including telling her they all wanted to “f**” her, and they that also left “presents” on her chair such as “a dildo gift set” among other things. Further, not only was there evidence management knew of some of the alleged harassment, the record also suggested that the employee’s manager took part in the harassment. Accordingly, the court found the employee established a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

Pretext. And while the company claimed it fired the employee as part of the workforce reduction and her low score on the rating sheet, the court found sufficient evidence of pretext to have precluded summary judgment. Specifically, the court observed, there was evidence the rating sheet, the sole document showing that her skills were rated inferior, was not finalized until after the company had selected her for termination. Thus, said the court, the employee should have been allowed to proceed to trial on this claim.

EPA claim. Finally, as to the employee’s Equal Pay Act claim, the court noted in a footnote that the district court had concluded that she did not perform equal work to her coworker because they “had different responsibilities, maintained different skillsets, and performed different tasks.” But for the reasons discussed, said the court, “that was an error—a reasonable juror could conclude that the two performed equal work.” There was also evidence that at the time of her termination, the employee’s rate of pay was $21.58 per hour while her coworker’s rate was $27.00 per hour. Thus, the court found she stated a prima facie equal pay case.

The case is No. 24-1336.

Judge: Gibbons, J.

Attorneys: Christopher K. Cooke (Secrest Wardle) for Dawn Hayes. Joshua P. Lushnat (Ogletree Deakins) for Clariant Plastics & Coatings, USA, Inc.

Companies: Clariant Plastics & Coatings, USA, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory SexDiscrimination Discrimination AgeDiscrimination PayDiscrimination Discharge KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews