An employer can prevail at the summary judgment stage by demonstrating legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual reasons for an employment decision. That is the lesson of DeWalt v. Harrison Cty. Comm’rs, No. 15-4189 (6th Cir., June 30, 2016), a case involving dog wardens, a stolen radio, and local politics.
Tina DeWalt worked as a dog warden for the Board of Commissioners of Harrison County, Ohio until the Board abolished her position and replaced her with two part-time male employees. DeWalt sued the Board for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Ohio state law. DeWalt alleged that the Board’s decision to eliminate the full-time dog warden position was motivated by sex.
DeWalt was hired as assistant dog warden in 2010. Shortly after she was hired, members of the sheriff’s office removed the radio from DeWalt’s county vehicle. The department apparently wanted to teach DeWalt a lesson because she routinely left her car unlocked. After DeWalt reported the “stolen” radio, the sheriff and a deputy told a County Commissioner that the Board needed to fire DeWalt or else she would be arrested for drug dealing (there was no proof that DeWalt was or was going to become a drug dealer). The Board went along with the sheriff’s instruction and told DeWalt that she was being let go. DeWalt, however, gave an impassioned plea and convinced the Board to reverse its decision. Instead of firing DeWalt, the Board placed her on a 30-day review period.
DeWalt survived the review period and was appointed full-time dog warden in April 2011. In this capacity, DeWalt requested and was refused assistance from the Sheriff’s office from time to time. She also requested firearms training, yet the sheriff refused to provide such training (Ohio law gives dog wardens the same police powers as sheriffs and police officers).
In December 2012, the sole Commissioner who seemed to be on DeWalt’s side lost her reelection bid. Members of the “new” Board identified two males to serve as part-time dog wardens and, in January 2013, the Board eliminated the full-time dog warden position. DeWalt applied, but the two men the Commissioners had previously identified were hired.
At summary judgment, the Board argued that the full-time dog warden position was eliminated because of DeWalt’s lack of professionalism, performance problems, inability to work with the public and other county officials, and mismanagement of public money. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the Board on all of DeWalt’s claims. On DeWalt’s position elimination claim, the court concluded that DeWalt had not presented enough evidence of pretext to overcome the Board’s legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation.
The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment because the Board’s explanation was not necessarily inconsistent with the explanation that DeWalt was given at the time of her termination — i.e., that she had been told that the position was eliminated to improve service at the dog pound, relieve stress of the dog warden position, budgetary concerns, and to better serve the public.