Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment in ADA and Remainds for Determination of Appropriate Sanctions Against Employer for Spoliation

 

In Kean v. Brinker International, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's remedy for spoliation and a grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the employer on an employee's discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"). In the opinion, the Sixth Circuit overturned summary judgment finding that because a report should have been excluded by the district court the employer could not rely on an honest-belief defense and show that "it made a reasonably informed and considered decision before terminating Kean." It also remanded the case to determine whether more severe spoliation sanctions should be implemented against the employer for failing to preserve and retain relevant documents.

Under a judicially created doctrine in employment cases alleging discrimination and related claims, if an employer honestly, albeit mistakenly, believes in the non-discriminatory reason it relied upon in making its employment decision, then the employer arguably lacks the necessary discriminatory intent to establish discrimination under the ADA or similar laws, like Title VII. 

Jeff Kean, a 59-year-old general manager of a Chili’s restaurant in Tennessee  was terminated by Chili's, owned by Brinker International, despite an exemplary performance record. Kean had consistently led one of the most successful restaurants in his region, receiving top scores in profitability and employee satisfaction during his employment with Chili's. His firing came shortly after a new regional director took over, and he was replaced by a 33-year-old assistant manager.

Brinker International claimed that Kean had created a “toxic culture” in the workplace, pointing to an internal human resources document called the Team Member Relations (TMR) report. However, during litigation, it became clear the TMR report could not be authenticated by any employees who had knowledge of its creation or contents. The person who supposedly created it had no memory of doing so, and Brinker could not establish who wrote it or how the information in it was gathered. As a result, the appellate court found that the report did not meet the evidentiary requirements for admissibility and reversed the district court's reliance on such evidence.

There was also an issue of spoliation. Brinker destroyed relevant emails and internal communications before a formal litigation hold was in place, and after receiving notice of Mr. Kean's claims. Although the district court initially issued monetary sanctions, the Sixth Circuit questioned whether that was sufficient in light of the destruction of relevant evidence. It sent the case back to the lower court to consider whether more serious sanctions—such as excluding evidence or allowing an adverse inference—might be appropriate.

Without the TMR report, Brinker’s justification for firing Kean lost credibility. The court found that Kean had presented enough circumstantial evidence to question whether the real reason for his termination was his age. He had received glowing reviews, achieved top performance metrics and had no documented performance concerns. The court also rejected Brinker’s claim that it had an “honest belief” that Kean’s behavior warranted termination, noting that there was no reliable record of any problems with Kean’s conduct. As such, it reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Brinker and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. It allowed Kean’s age discrimination claim to proceed to trial and instructed the lower court to reassess the spoliation sanctions and to determine whether an adverse inference or other more serious sanction was appropriate.

This decision is a strong reminder to employers of the importance of documenting performance issues accurately and preserving relevant records when litigation is foreseeable. It also underscores that courts will carefully scrutinize justifications for termination when those reasons are unsupported by objective evidence—especially when the employee has a long record of success and is replaced by a significantly younger individual.

For employees, it's a reminder of the importance of requesting a litigation hold early in a case. An employer's failure to do so can have serious consequences that can lead to serious sanctions. Often, employees can establish discrimination through circumstantial evidence by casting doubt on the truthfulness of an employer's asserted justification for termination, or by presenting other evidence of pretext, including the treatment of comparable employees. Direct evidence of discrimination is not necessary to prevail on a discrimination claim, if significant circumstantial evidence of discrimination exists.

 If you have questions about the ADA or other state of federal discrimination laws, you can reach out to our employment lawyers at Stavros Law by email at scheduling@stavroslaw.com or by telephone at (801) 758-7604.