## Facts

- Jose Antonio Rodriguez, a Hispanic American, worked as a truck driver for a freight company that was later acquired by FedEx Freight East, Inc.
- Rodriguez sought advancement into management and enrolled in FedEx’s Leadership Apprentice Course, a program intended to prepare employees for supervisory roles.
- Rodriguez interviewed twice for supervisory openings but was not selected.
- Rodney Adkinson, Rodriguez’s supervisor, took part in the process surrounding the advancement decisions.
- After the decisions, other FedEx managers reported that Adkinson attributed Rodriguez’s nonselection to Rodriguez’s accent and speech patterns and also made disparaging remarks about Rodriguez’s accent.
- These managers later submitted affidavits describing Adkinson’s statements, and Rodriguez learned of the statements from them.
- Rodriguez sued FedEx in Michigan state court under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), alleging: discrimination based on national origin (failure to advance), hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.
- FedEx removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on diversity grounds. The federal court analyzed ELCRA using the same general framework applied to Title VII claims.
- Rodriguez later filed bankruptcy, and the claims became assets of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee, Stuart Gold, pursued the case.
- The district court referred FedEx’s summary-judgment motion to the bankruptcy court, which granted summary judgment to FedEx and dismissed all claims with prejudice; the district court affirmed.
- The trustee appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether affidavits recounting a supervisor’s accent- and speech-based remarks tied to the advancement decision created a genuine dispute of material fact (including as direct evidence) on Rodriguez’s ELCRA national-origin discrimination claim.
2. Whether the record supported an ELCRA hostile-work-environment claim based on conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
3. Whether the evidence could support constructive discharge by showing working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.
4. Whether the trustee presented sufficient evidence of retaliation under ELCRA, including a causal connection between protected activity and an adverse action.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit **vacated** summary judgment on the ELCRA discrimination claim based on failure to advance and **remanded** for further proceedings.
- The Sixth Circuit **affirmed** summary judgment for FedEx on the **hostile work environment**, **constructive discharge**, and **retaliation** claims.
- The court held that, at the summary-judgment stage, the affidavits describing Adkinson’s accent-related statements—if believed—could allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that national-origin bias motivated the advancement decision, and credibility disputes could not be resolved on the written record.

## Legal Principles

- ELCRA employment-discrimination claims are generally analyzed using the same basic approach applied to Title VII claims.
- At summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and it may not resolve credibility disputes.
- Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful bias was at least a motivating factor in the challenged employment action, without additional inferential steps about intent.
- Comments about an employee’s accent or speech may support a national-origin discrimination claim when they are linked to the challenged decision and attributed to a decisionmaker or a person involved in the decision.
- A hostile work environment requires conduct that is both subjectively and objectively hostile and sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; isolated or minor incidents typically do not satisfy this standard.
- Constructive discharge requires proof that working conditions were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign.
- Retaliation requires (among other elements) protected activity, employer knowledge, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action; speculation without evidentiary support does not establish causation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that affidavits attributing accent-based remarks to Rodriguez’s supervisor, in connection with the advancement decisions, created a triable fact question on national-origin discrimination under ELCRA, so dismissal of that claim was vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings, while dismissal of the hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation claims was affirmed.


In Re Rodriguez, 487 F.3d 1001 (2007)