Sixth Circuit: Employee Fails to Establish race Discrimination based on Having Biracial Children
1 min read
Mar 4, 2013
An employee was terminated after her employer conducted an investigation which ultimately revealed that she was stealing hydrocodone pills from the employer’s pharmacy. As a result of the investigation, the employer contacted the local police and provided them with information that ultimately led to the arrest of the employee. The employee then filed suit against her employer, claiming that the employer was deliberately misleading and malicious in providing information to the police which led to her arrest. The employee claimed that her termination was actually because of her race, and more specifically, based on her having biracial children. She also claimed that she was retaliated against for her complaints about unlawful race discrimination. The employee alleged that the employer’s actions violated the state of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act and common law, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the employee failed to demonstrate race discrimination based on being the mother of biracial children because she could not show that she was treated differently from a similarly situated employee, and because she was unable to demonstrate that the employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her termination — that she was stealing from her employer — was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the employee’s retaliation claim because the employee failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and to show a causal connection between her activities and her termination.
Properly documenting the legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory basis for an employee’s termination is key to defending against claims such as these. For more information read Handlon v. Rite Aid Servs., LLC, No. 12-1275 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013).
Topics
Featured Insights

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

