Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—6th Cir.: State Farm employee’s claim she was fired for helping colleague secure ADA accommodation revived, (Jul 28, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“As we have repeatedly recognized, a supervisor can cause an employee’s termination by reporting true yet selective information.”

Reversing summary judgment against the ADA retaliation claim of a State Farm claims specialist who alleged she was singled out and fired for conduct widespread in the office—timecard manipulation—because she helped her colleague advocate for an accommodation, the Sixth Circuit found sufficient evidence to show a supervisor’s stated reason for reporting her was pretextual and she raised a genuine dispute over his motives, as required for her cat’s paw claim. “This,” said the court, is “not a case in which performance issues precede and then prompt special scrutiny,” but rather “heightened scrutiny seemed to come only after [the employee] engaged in protected activity, with no other prevailing reason to justify it.” Judge Readler, dissenting, argued that the employee “seemingly found more capable advocates on the appellate bench than she did at counsel table” (Gray v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 24-3086 (6th Cir. July 25, 2025)).

Colleague’s OT accommodation. At the time of her termination, the employee had worked for State Farm for 15 years. Her colleague, who worked on a different team with a different supervisor, had an ADA accommodation that exempted her from working overtime. Nonetheless, in August 2017, her colleague’s supervisor told her State Farm would no longer accommodate her work schedule and placed her on leave until she agreed to work overtime.

Asked by her colleague for help, the employee researched ADA law and State Farm policies, talked to HR, filed a complaint against the supervisor, and advised her to contact an attorney and file an EEOC charge, which she did. The colleague also repeatedly told her supervisor that the employee was helping her. The colleague was ultimately allowed to transition to a new team.

Timecard issues. In November 2017, while the employee’s supervisor went on vacation, her colleague’s supervisor filled in. And although the employee’s supervisor never monitored or verified his employees’ timecards, the colleague’s supervisor examined the employee’s, noticed several instances in which she reported time while she was logged off her computer, and raised the issue with his direct supervisor, who told him to report it to HR. The supervisor then told HR the employee had manually adjusted her time to hide long lunches and early departures and incorrectly claimed she had previously been coached for such behavior.

Honest belief. After an investigation revealed more timecard discrepancies, the employee argued she was being targeted for helping her colleague secure an accommodation. Not long thereafter, she was fired for falsifying her timesheets. She subsequently sued for retaliation in violation of the ADA and state law and the district court, granting summary judgment to State Farm, found State Farm had an honest belief the employee had falsified her time.

Protected activity. After noting on appeal that the employee invoked both direct and vicarious theories of liability, the court addressed her claim she engaged in protected activity by helping her colleague with her ADA accommodation. Agreeing, the court noted that the employee supported her colleague throughout the ADA process, actively pushing back against the supervisor’s opposition. There was also evidence the supervisor and others were aware of her activity, said the court.

Causation. As for a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination, the court noted that for two years, the employee’s supervisor never scrutinized her timesheets. After she assisted her colleague, however, her time entries were closely reviewed and resulted in her discharge. While State Farm argued that this increased scrutiny was due to a change in supervisors, there was evidence the colleague’s supervisor did not scrutinize other employees’ timecards in the same way. There was also evidence State Farm investigated the employee only two or three months after she helped her colleague, said the court, finding enough evidence to raise a triable question on her direct liability claim.

As for her cat’s paw claim, the court found the temporal proximity was even closer as the colleague’s supervisor’s first opportunity to retaliate came when he filled in for the employee’s vacationing supervisor. He then reviewed the employee’s timesheets and immediately reported her to HR without consulting her supervisor. That timing by itself, said the court, showed prima facie causation between the employee’s protected activity and the supervisor’s actions.

Pretext. Because State Farm proffered a nonretaliatory reason for firing the employee, timecard falsification, the court turned to the employee’s evidence of pretext. Here, the court quickly disposed of her direct liability claim because she failed to call into question State Farm’s reason.

In an attempt to hold State Farm vicariously liable for the supervisor’s actions, she argued that he reported her for retaliatory reasons and his report influenced State Farm’s decision to fire her. The company, however, contended that he inspected timesheets as part of his normal managerial practice; reviewed her timesheets in the same way he reviewed others’; and reported her for “well-founded” discrepancies in her records.

Similar conduct. Finding sufficient evidence of differential scrutiny to raise a material dispute over the supervisor’s motives, the court noted that the employee pointed to a coworker who had nearly identical discrepancies in her records. Although the supervisor knew about this similar conduct, he did not treat the two in the same way. Rather, he viewed the employee’s actions as an “integrity” issue and reported her to HR while he considered the coworker’s conduct as a simple “performance” problem and coached her for policy violations.

For its part, State Farm argued that the supervisor reported the employee because, unlike her coworker, she claimed to be working “when she was not even in the building,” he reported her based on discrepancies between her time entries and computer activity, and her alleged physical absences surfaced only after he reported her. But he did not report the employee for that reason. Rather, he reported her based on discrepancies between her time entries and computer activity and it was undisputed that her alleged physical absences surfaced only after he reported her.

Performance vs. falsification. In addition, the employee pointed to other employees who clocked into work but spent time socializing or visiting the cafeteria. While State Farm admitted this happened, it argued that was a performance issue, not a falsification issue. However, said the court, “State Farm’s written policy treats both ‘inaccurately report[ing] time’ and ‘[f]alsify[ing] a timesheet’ as policy violations, without distinguishing between their severity.” Though a jury could conclude that the employee engaged in more serious misconduct, State Farm’s policy did not draw that distinction and the question of whether the supervisor singled her out for otherwise common behavior is a matter for the jury, the court stated.

Noting that State Farm identified no other reason that could justify the supervisor’s unique scrutiny of the employee, the court found sufficient evidence to show that his stated reason for reporting her was a pretext designed to mask retaliation.

Causal nexus. The court also found sufficient evidence to show the supervisor proximately caused her termination. He reported the employee for conduct that was “virtually identical” to that of her coworker, falsely claimed that she had been previously coached for taking long lunches and suggested that she likely misreported time on more than the three occasions that he discovered. A jury, said the court, could conclude that the supervisor caused State Farm to investigate the employee while anticipating other discrepancies that could lead to her termination and also conclude that State Farm relied on his “biased report” when it chose to investigate and ultimately terminate her.

As to State Farm’s contention that the supervisor honestly believed in the truth of his allegations, “a supervisor does not have to lie in order to be biased,” said the court, and “a supervisor can cause an employee’s termination by reporting true yet selective information.” And while State Farm also argued that it could not be liable because it independently confirmed the supervisor’s allegations, “when a supervisor reports true but selective information, an investigation will always confirm the supervisor’s allegation,” the court observed, pointing out that the “Supreme Court has rejected such an ‘implausible’ reading of antidiscrimination provisions.”

Moreover, the court stated, the employee argued that the supervisor selectively reported her to HR and his report led State Farm to investigate and terminate her. She also alerted State Farm to potential retaliation but it failed to take her allegation seriously. And she identified specific colleagues who also rounded their time entries but were not reported. Despite this, State Farm made no effort to determine whether the supervisor singled her out for retaliatory reasons. “Even under a narrower view of vicarious liability,” said the court, “a jury could conclude that by ignoring [the employee’s] allegation, State Farm effectively ‘delegated part of [its] decisionmaking power’” to the supervisor.

Accordingly, the court reversed summary judgment against the employee’s ADA retaliation claim.

Dissent. Judge Readler, in a lengthy dissent, argued that the majority, “Laboring to rehabilitate [the employee’s] flawed appeal... resolves issue after issue in [her] favor on grounds she never bothered to raise, with reference to evidence she never bothered to cite.”

“Unsatisfied with [the employee’s] litigating choices,” Judge Readler continued, “the majority opinion unilaterally remolds the afterthought cat’s paw argument as the key legal theory that allows [her] to avoid summary judgment. In so doing, the majority opinion ‘shifts’ the entire case’s focus from the ‘motive[s]’ of the “decisionmaker” (State Farm) to those of the “subordinate” ([supervisor]). This could not be further from the way in which [the employee] asked us to view her lawsuit.”

The case is No. 24-3086.

Judge: Bloomekatz, R.

Attorneys: Laren E. Knoll (The Knoll Law Firm) for Monica Gray. Jeffrey S. Hiller (McGrath North Mullin & Kratz) for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Companies: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

MainStory: TopStory Retaliation DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination CoverageLiability KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews