Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—6th Cir.: EMT, fired for showing nude photos of alleged harasser, cannot revive claims, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“Title VII does not protect an employee where, as here, the employee has needlessly and gratuitously shared nude and possibly sexually explicit images of co-workers.”

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII retaliation claims asserted by a former EMT against her employer, the Sixth Circuit determined that while Title VII protected at least some of what the employee said at a meeting with two new hires when discussing EMT culture, that protected conduct may not be used to seek shelter from a firing that was based on unprotected conduct. The court also noted that even if the images shared by the employee were publicly available online, that fact did not mean that her coworkers had to be subjected to seeing or hearing about them while on the job (Crisp v. Scioto Ambulance District, No. 25-3885 (6th Cir. July 17, 2026)).

The employee in this case first met her alleged sexual harasser when the two were employed as EMTs at the Portsmouth Ambulance Department. According to the employee, the coworker would make inappropriate comments about her breasts and would make obscene comments to any female employee who gave him attention.

Naked photos. At some point, another EMT showed the employee and others nude photos of the coworker during a workplace discussion. The photos came from profiles the coworker and his wife allegedly posted on a website for people seeking sexual relationships outside of their marriages.

Assault. Some time later, the employee and her coworker found themselves employed by Scioto Ambulance District. During one shift in December 2018, the coworker began talking about the employee’s body. He proceeded to tip over the recliner she was sitting in and tried to stuff her into a trash can. The employee told him to stop, but the coworker allegedly responded that there was no one around to hear her scream as he touched her breasts while she lay flat on her back having been tipped out of her chair.

Separated. Later that night, the employee informed her supervisor of the incident and showed a copy of the coworker’s online profile. The employer separated the two such that they would no longer work any more shifts together. The two remained out of touch until two years later when they started communicating on Facebook. The coworker attempted to get the employee to have sex with him. She refused and the matter was dropped.

Photos shared. Two years after the Facebook encounter, the employee met with two new hires to discuss EMS culture. During the meeting, she explained “that there is always a grain of truth in most of the rumors and that there’s lots of... perverted[,] predatory men in EMS.” In addition, she showed the hires nude images of the coworker and his wife (who was also an EMT at the company at this point) taken from their online profile.

Termination. Following an investigation, the decision was made to terminate the employee. In response, she filed this lawsuit alleging that her firing was unlawful retaliation under state and federal law. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment and the district court sided with the employer, leading to this appeal.

Title VII protections inapplicable. First addressing the employee’s attempt to make out a prima facie case for retaliation, the court found that she had failed to meet this burden, explaining that no reasonable jury would find all of the elements to have been met in this instance.

“Title VII does not protect an employee where, as here, the employee has needlessly and gratuitously shared nude and possibly sexually explicit images of co-workers,” said the court. Although the court noted that it could envision scenarios where sharing such material might be necessary or warranted to substantiate a claim of sexual harassment, this was not such a situation.

Displaying the couples’ online profiles to others at work was not protected activity, continued the court. While it was true that the employee had complained that her coworker made inappropriate comments and touched her inappropriately while on their shift, that would not excuse the employee’s subsequent conduct.

Instead of seeking redress in a lawful way, the employee “took matters two steps further,” observed the court. The employee did not need to share those images to make her point, nor could she justify showing pictures of the coworker’s wife, who had nothing to do with the alleged harassment. Even if the images were publicly available online, that did not mean that coworkers had to be subjected to seeing or hearing about them while on the job, said the court.

But some protection? In response, the employee contended that Title VII protected at least some of what she said and did in the meeting with the new hires. The court agreed but found that this was not enough for her claim to survive.

“When an employee engages in both protected and unprotected conduct under Title VII, she cannot use the protected conduct to seek shelter from a firing that is based on her unprotected conduct,” explained the court, noting that it was with good reason that the employee did not argue that displaying these images at work was protected activity. The fact that she may have been allowed to tell the new hires about her coworker’s alleged workplace conduct could not excuse her own misconduct, concluded the court.

Final considerations. In closing, the court noted some important considerations that led to this outcome. First, to the extent that Title VII provides a remedy for employees in a sexually charged workplace, that remedy lies in a hostile work environment claim, a claim that was dropped by the employee in her summary judgment papers.

Second, the employee did not assert a claim for disparate treatment, nor did she argue that similarly situated EMTs at the company shared nude or sexually explicit images without being fired. Thus, to prevail on her claim, she was essentially left to persuade the court that a jury could find her employer violated Title VII when it fired her for sharing nude images of her coworkers while on the clock. She had failed to do so, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-3885.

Judge: Bush, J.

Attorneys: Matthew Jacob Clark (Gregory, Moore, Brooks & Clark) for Gertrude Crisp. Katherine L. Barbiere (Schroeder, Maundrell, Barbiere & Powers) for Scioto Ambulance District.

Companies: Scioto Ambulance District

MainStory: TopStory Retaliation Discharge Discrimination SexualHarassment KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews