Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—6th Cir.: Reporting a supervisor’s sexually suggestive comment about another employee not enough for a Title VII retaliation claim, (Jun 9, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, as he did not demonstrate engagement in a protected activity.

A district court’s grant of summary judgment for an employer against an employee’s suit for retaliation under Title VII after his position was eliminated, was affirmed on appeal by the Sixth Circuit in an unpublished decision. The employee had claimed he was retaliated against when he reported to Human Resources a direct supervisor’s sexually suggestive comment about a junior employee. The appeals court held that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, as he did not demonstrate engagement in a protected activity. The comment in question, though inappropriate, was a one-time remark made in a non-threatening context and not directed at the complainant or the individual referenced. It was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII standards (Schelle v. City of Piqua, Ohio, No. 24-3980 (6th Cir. Jun. 5, 2025, unpublished)).

Sexually suggestive comment. The employee served as the Storm Water Program Manager for the City of Piqua, Ohio from 2017 until his position was eliminated at the end of 2021. In September 2021, during a budget meeting, his direct supervisor made a sexually suggestive comment about a junior employee who was not present. The employee, concerned about the inappropriate nature of the remark and its implications for workplace culture and professional advancement, reported the incident to the Human Resources director the following day. An internal inquiry concluded that other attendees at the meeting characterized the comment as “shop talk” and did not perceive it as offensive or inappropriate. Nevertheless, the HR director and the city manager issued a verbal warning to the supervisor, describing the remark as unprofessional and embarrassing, though not rising to the level of harassment. The supervisor expressed remorse, and the matter was formally closed in early October.

Elimination of position. Soon thereafter, the employee began experiencing changes in his work environment. He was asked to include his supervisor on all external emails and was uninvited from a key planning meeting. In November 2021, he was notified that his position would be eliminated as part of a broader reorganization. The employee reported feeling shocked, as he had previously seen a budget depicting his position and salary for several years. The Civil Service Commission denied his request for a hearing and noted that the only way for a nonunion at-will employee to appeal an adverse employment decision was to seek a public hearing with the city manager. That hearing, at which the employee did not argue or present any positions but asked questions, revealed that the decision to abolish the role had allegedly been made in May 2021, prior to the reporting of the comment.

The employee filed suit under Title VII and parallel provisions of Ohio law, alleging unlawful retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding the employee had not engaged in protected activity under Title VII. The employee appealed.

Prima facie case. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. The appeals court held that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, as he did not demonstrate engagement in a protected activity. The court noted that Title VII recognizes two types of protected activity: opposition to potential Title VII violations and participation in an EEOC proceeding.

In order to establish that he engaged in protected activity, the plaintiff must have had “a reasonable and good faith belief” that the supervisor’s comments amounted to sexual harassment under Title VII. The court assumed, for the sake of analysis, that the comments were sex-based, but found that the employee’s belief that the comments constituted unlawful sexual harassment was not objectively reasonable. The comment in question, though inappropriate, was a one-time remark made in a non-threatening context and not directed at the complainant or the individual referenced. It was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII standards, the court noted: other attendees laughed and did not find the comment offensive or inappropriate; the supervisor apologized; and the subject of the comment did not express concern and continued to work with the supervisor without incident.

The court emphasized that Title VII is not a general civility code for the workplace. Quoting Clark County School District v. Breeden and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the court reaffirmed that isolated, offhand comments, even if crude, typically do not meet the threshold for harassment. The court also rejected the employee’s argument that early intervention to prevent future harassment should be protected, holding instead that the statute protects only opposition to conduct that a reasonable person would believe violates Title VII. Because the employee’s report did not qualify as protected activity, his retaliation claims under both federal and Ohio law failed.

Accordingly, the district court’s decision was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.

The case is No. 24-3980.

Judge: McKeague, D.

Attorneys: Trisha M. Breedlove (The Spitz Law Firm) for Sky Schelle. Dawn M. Frick (Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A.) for City of Piqua.

Companies: City of Piqua, Ohio

Cases: Retaliation Discrimination SexualHarassment KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews