Officer Jeff Smith, the oldest and longest-tenured police officer in the City of Union, Ohio, was terminated after the City alleged that he violated multiple departmental policies during incidents on May 30 and 31, 2020. The City claimed that Smith failed to follow proper procedures during a high-speed chase and a burglary investigation, including neglecting to activate his body-worn camera, provide first aid to a crash victim, and properly collect evidence. Smith admitted to some policy violations but argued that his mistakes were minor and excusable given the circumstances. An arbitrator later found the City’s decision to terminate him was unreasonable and ordered his reinstatement with backpay, reducing his punishment to a three-day suspension. Despite the Arbitrator’s ruling, the City delayed Smith’s return by requiring a fitness-for-duty examination and taking additional weeks to reinstate him. During this delay, the City promoted a younger officer and negotiated raises for all officers except Smith.
Smith sued the City under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio’s analogous law, alleging he was fired due to his age and that the delayed reinstatement was retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that a jury could reasonably find the City’s actions were motivated by age discrimination and retaliation.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision focused heavily on the pretextual nature of the City’s justification for terminating Smith. The Court noted the Arbitrator’s findings were particularly damning, as the Arbitrator concluded the City’s rationale for firing Smith was “so unreasonable, and so outside what could be considered rational, that it colored all that followed.” The Arbitrator also found the City ignored its own progressive discipline policy, which typically resulted in lesser punishments for similar infractions. Smith’s prior disciplinary record included only minor reprimands and a five-day suspension for more serious misconduct, further undermining the City’s claim that termination was warranted. The Court emphasized that the Arbitrator’s decision, while not binding, was strong evidence that the City’s stated reasons for firing Smith were pretextual.
The Court also highlighted a remark that Chief Blackwell made during Smith’s disciplinary hearing that he had “watched videos of younger officers that didn’t make the mistakes that [Officer Smith] made.” Although the Chief later claimed he meant “lesser experienced” rather than “younger,” the Court found the comment, combined with the Arbitrator’s findings, could lead a jury to infer age discrimination. The Court rejected the City’s argument that a single remark was insufficient, noting that “a comment by an employer can constitute circumstantial evidence of ageist intent even if it isn’t clear enough to amount to direct evidence.”
On the retaliation claim, the Court held that the City’s delay in reinstating Smith — coupled with the promotion of a younger officer and exclusion from raises — could dissuade a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination. The City argued the fitness-for-duty exam was justified due to Smith’s prior admission of stress-related mistakes and his year-long absence from duty. However, the Court found the City provided no legitimate reason for the additional delay after Smith passed the exam, particularly when it used that time to benefit other officers. The Court noted the temporal proximity between the EEOC charge and the delayed reinstatement supported an inference of retaliation, as the City’s actions began immediately after the arbitrator’s ruling in Smith’s favor.
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, allowing Smith’s claims to proceed to trial.
Smith v. City of Union, 144 F.4th 867 (6th Cir. 2025).