Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard, , No. 11-3494 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseTingle alleged that she was disciplined and ultimately terminated from employment by the nursing home, in retaliation for speaking with investigators from the Ohio Department of Health following the death of a nursing home resident. She brought her claim under Ohio Revised Code 3721.24(A), which prohibits retaliation for participating in a Department of Health investigation, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer claimed that the termination was justified by the company’s progressive discipline policy. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Once a defendant has advanced a non-retaliatory reason for terminating an employee, it is the plaintiff’s burden to come forward with evidence that would tend to undermine the legitimacy of that reason. Tingle’s allegations were insufficient to suggest that the defendants lacked an honest belief in their proffered reasons for their actions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.