Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—6th Cir.: U.S. Bank execs, fired after complaining about supervisor, revive retaliation claim, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The decisionmaker learned about the ethics complaint two days after it was filed, then questioned the timing of the complaint, asserting it was filed by an employee who was worried about his future with the company.

Reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII retaliation claims asserted by two former U.S. Bank executives, a divided Sixth Circuit panel determined that the parties had presented two reasonable interpretations of the evidence, and thus it was up to a jury to answer the ultimate question of whether the employer terminated the employees in retaliation for opposing an unlawful employment practice. However, the court did affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the employees’ hostile work environment claims, finding U.S. Bank had established the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to supervisor liability. Summary judgment was also affirmed as to one employee’s age discrimination claim. Judge Batchelder dissented with regard to the retaliation claim (Strotman v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 25-3706 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026)).

In January 2017, U.S. Bank hired one of the plaintiffs as its vice president of governance control for the Consumer Banking Default Management Group. Six months later, he recruited a former colleague to serve as U.S. Bank’s vice president of third-party risk for consumer lending services.

Supervisor issues. Following a reorganization in Fall 2017, the two employees began reporting to U.S. Bank’s senior vice president of quality control. According to the employees, the supervisor shared with them explicit details about his sex life.

During a team meeting in February 2018, the supervisor disagreed with the governance control vice president about how much a third-party audit would cost the company. He suggested they bet on who would prove to be correct. When the employee resisted, his supervisor began to belittle him. Concerned about the potential repercussions if he did not agree to the supervisor’s demand, he entered into a wager, which he ultimately lost, resulting in him giving the supervisor a $150 gift card.

Reorganization. Around the same time, U.S. Bank underwent another reorganization. As a result, the two employees, along with their supervisor, began reporting to U.S. Bank’s senior vice president and chief administrative officer. During the reorganization, the senior vice president began conducting a “synergy exercise.” The parties disputed whether this exercise could result in terminations.

Complaint. Meanwhile, in March 2018, U.S. Bank held an employee training about appropriate workplace conduct. On March 27, after attending this training, the governance control vice president reported his supervisor for his behavior by calling the ethics hotline and submitting a complaint. His complaint focused on the betting incident, but he also claimed that the supervisor’s inappropriate behavior created a hostile work environment.

Two days later, an HR representative contacted the senior vice president to discuss the complaint. A few days after this discussion, the senior vice president emailed the representative about “HR Related Concerns.” In the email, the senior vice president described the employees as “very close” and “worried about their jobs in this new organization.” For these reasons, he “question[ed] the timing” of the ethics complaint. He also signaled that he would be firing the employees soon and that the “leadership concerns [he] ha[d] with both of them [were] valid and mutually exclusive of any complaints filed or potentially filed.”

Peer group analysis. After sharing his plans to fire the employees, the senior vice president conducted a peer group analysis (PGA). According to U.S. Bank’s policy, a PGA “must be completed where there are two or more employees in the position being considered for elimination, but not all employees in the job will be severed.” Typically, a PGA is completed at the start of the reduction-in-force process and before a termination decision has been made.

Investigation results. In the meantime, an HR investigation determined that the employees’ supervisor had violated U.S. Bank’s workplace respect policy. He was ultimately fired about one year later based, in part, on his failure to execute a PGA in accordance with company policy.

Termination, lawsuit. On May 15, 2018, the employees were terminated. The bulk of the governance control vice president’s duties were transferred to an employee in the reorganized CBSS servicing group while the remainder were distributed to employees outside of this group.

Subsequently, the employees filed this lawsuit, alleging retaliation and hostile work environment claims under Title VII and Ohio law, and age discrimination under the ADEA and Ohio law. The district court granted summary judgment against all claims. Here, the employees appealed the dismissal of their Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims. The governance control vice president also appealed the dismissal of his ADEA claim.

Causal connection. First, the court considered the employees’ retaliation claim. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, U.S. Bank challenged only the causation element of the prima facie case, arguing the senior vice president had decided to fire the employees weeks before the ethics complaint was made. However, during his deposition, the senior vice president testified that he reached his “final determination” in April 2018, after the time complaint had been filed. Further, he asked the supervisor on April 20 for feedback about the employee who did not file the complaint because he was contemplating keeping him on in the interim. This close temporal proximity could suffice to show causation, said the court.

RIF. Shifting the burden to U.S. Bank to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, it did so by pointing to a reduction in workforce.

Timing. On the question of pretext, the court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that U.S. Bank’s supposed reduction in force did not motivate its decision to terminate the employees. Starting with the timing of the decision, the court noted that the senior vice president learned of the complaint two days after it was filed. Shortly thereafter, he questioned the timing of the complaint and asserted that it may have been made because the employee was concerned about the future of his position. He also stated he was concerned the other employee might take a similar tack and announced his plan to fire the two employees.

It also appeared to the court that the terminations were not anticipated as part of the reorganization. An executive vice president at the bank testified that he had no expectations that any employees would be fired as a result of the reorganization. In fact, there were open positions on the team when the employees were fired.

Process failures. In addition, the court observed that it appeared U.S. Bank failed to follow its processes for assessing employees and determining who to terminate during a reduction in force, as the senior vice president decided to fire the employees before completing the PGA form, a process that U.S. Bank takes so seriously as to making the later decision to fire the employees’ supervisor in part for failing to properly execute a PGA.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was up to a jury to decide whether U.S. Bank engaged in prohibited retaliation. When the parties present two reasonable interpretations of the evidence, it is up to the jury to answer the question of whether the employer retaliated against the employees, said the court.

Hostile work environment. Turning to the employees’ claim for a hostile work environment, the court resolved this claim on the employer-liability element. According to the employees, their supervisor sexually harassed them by making frequent, inappropriate comments about women. However, they could not show that the supervisor took a tangible employment action against them. The supervisor was not involved in the termination decision, observed the court.

Because the employees’ discharge was not part of the supervisor’s alleged harassment, the court considered whether U.S. Bank established an affirmative defense to liability. It determined that it did under the Faragher/Ellerth framework.

U.S. Bank had a reasonable sexual harassment policy in place and that policy was effective in practice, explained the court. Following the investigation, the supervisor became ineligible for any promotions or raises for 90 days, and an annual bonus could be withheld at U.S. Bank’s discretion. After receiving this warning, the supervisor refrained from making any more inappropriate sexual comments.

As to whether the employees reasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective measures proffered by U.S. Bank, the court determined that the employees had indeed failed to do so. The supervisor allegedly began making inappropriate comments in November 2017, but the employee had waited nearly four months to report the offending behavior. Further, his complaint focused largely on the betting incident, and his follow-up to inquiries about the supervisor’s comments were vague. Accordingly, the court found U.S. Bank established the Faragher/Ellerth defense to supervisor liability, and the grant of summary judgment against the hostile work environment claim was affirmed.

Age discrimination. Finally, the court addressed the governance control vice president’s claim for age discrimination. At issue was whether U.S. Bank replaced the employee with someone else. The court determined that this was not the case. An employee in the CBSS group took over most of the employee’s duties, in addition to her own, and the employee’s remaining responsibilities were distributed to others outside of the group. Without any evidence that the employee was singled out for termination because of his age, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against this claim as well.

Dissent. Dissenting on the reversal of the employees’ retaliation claim, Judge Batchelder contended that U.S. Bank was entitled to summary judgment because it was unaware of any protected activity by the employees when the decisionmaker stated his preliminary intention to terminate the employees on April 2. According to Judge Batchelder, the complaint to the hotline primarily involved the gambling incident, which did not bring the complaint within the ambit of Title VII, and at best amounted to a vague charge of discrimination. Judge Batchelder also disagreed with the majority that U.S. Bank had forfeited its causation argument.

The case is No. 25-3706.

Judge: Mathis, A.

Attorneys: Joshua Michael Smith (SSP Law Co.) for Mark Pannek and Thomas Strotman. Patricia Anderson Pryor (Jackson Lewis) for U.S. Bank National Association.

Companies: U.S. Bank National Association

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