Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall

130 F.4th 542 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 5, 2025 · No. 24-3292

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in an employment retaliation lawsuit brought under Title VII and Ohio law. The court found that the employer provided multiple independent, non-pretextual legitimate reasons for terminating the employee, including surreptitiously recording workplace conversations, excessive tardiness and unauthorized absences, and statements indicating she no longer wished to work at the facility. Because at least one legitimate reason remained unrefuted, the plaintiff's retaliation claims failed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
LARSEN; KETHLEDGE; THAPAR
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
March 5, 2025
Docket number
24-3292
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

retaliationtitle viiemployment discriminationhostile work environment

Practice areas

employment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bashaw established a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII and Ohio law.
  2. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment given the employer’s legitimate non‑pretextual reasons.
  3. Whether each of the employer’s stated reasons (recordings, attendance, alleged desire to quit, policy violation) is pretextual.

Holdings

  1. The court held that Bashaw satisfied the prima facie burden, but the employer’s three independent non‑pretextual reasons defeated her claim.
  2. The court affirmed the district court, holding that the employer offered three independent non‑pretextual reasons and therefore summary judgment was proper.
  3. The court held that the recordings were a legitimate, non‑pretextual reason for termination.
  4. The court held that attendance and tardiness were valid, non‑pretextual reasons for termination.
  5. The court held that the employer’s honest belief that Bashaw wanted to leave was a legitimate, non‑pretextual reason.

Key quotations

The record shows that Nieset had significant concerns about Bashaw’s surreptitious recording. As soon as she learned of it, Nieset told Bashaw that this was a “huge concern,” that she would have to tell the other team members, that this would undermine trust in the workplace, and she sought to terminate the conversation to speak with legal counsel. (*5)
An employer may terminate an employee for creating legal risk for the company. (*5)

Factual background

Kirstyn Bashaw served as Director of Social Services at Majestic Care of Whitehall from November 2021 until her termination in March 2022. She raised concerns about resident care and alleged racially insensitive and sexually harassing conduct by her supervisor, while also being repeatedly tardy, absent without authorization, and secretly recording meetings. The employer terminated her, citing the recordings, attendance issues, her alleged desire to leave, and a policy violation regarding resident discharge.

Procedural history

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Majestic Care, holding that it had offered three non‑pretextual reasons for terminating Bashaw. Bashaw appealed, arguing retaliation under Title VII and Ohio law.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…