Porter v. Jackson Township: Sixth Circuit Clarifies the “Honest-Belief” Rule in FMLA Retaliation Litigation

1. Introduction

Shawn Porter, a nine-year employee of the Jackson Township Highway Department in Ohio, underwent shoulder surgery and invoked leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). When he asked to return under doctor-imposed physical restrictions, the Township declined to provide light-duty work, placed him on paid vacation and then unpaid leave, and—after an investigation revealed Porter performing ostensibly heavy manual labor while on leave—terminated him for falsifying disability status. Porter sued in state court, asserting (among other claims) that the termination was retaliatory under the FMLA. The employer removed the matter to federal court, obtained summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit has now affirmed.

Although the opinion is designated “Not Recommended for Publication,” it squarely addresses—and refines—the Sixth Circuit’s honest-belief rule in the context of FMLA retaliation. The court confirms that an employer defeats a claim of pretext when it (1) possesses particularized facts supporting a reasonable belief in the employee’s misconduct, and (2) provides the employee procedural opportunity to rebut those facts, even if the investigation is not perfect or exhaustive (e.g., the employer never weighed the concrete saw).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Porter’s sole remaining claim—FMLA retaliation.
Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court focused exclusively on the third prong: whether the Township’s stated reason for firing Porter (violation of medical restrictions and dishonesty) was pretextual.
Invoking the honest-belief rule, the panel held that the Township reasonably relied on a private investigator’s video recordings and corroborating observations—all “particularized facts”—and that the internal disciplinary process satisfied due-process concerns.
Porter produced no evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently, nor evidence undermining the Township’s belief. Consequently, he failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Township.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – established the tripartite burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence, which the Sixth Circuit adopted for FMLA retaliation.
Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) – formally imported McDonnell Douglas into FMLA retaliation and articulated the prima facie elements.
Chen v. Dow Chemical Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) – explained three traditional methods of showing pretext (“no basis in fact,” “didn’t actually motivate,” “insufficient to motivate”).
Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) and Clay v. UPS, 501 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2007) – crystallized the Sixth Circuit’s “honest-belief rule,” under which an employer’s honestly held, reasonable belief defeats pretext even if the factual premise is ultimately incorrect.
Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) – emphasized that the FMLA does not bar employers from investigating potential leave abuse.

These authorities converge in Porter: the court reaffirmed that honest belief remains a robust shield for employers, provided they can demonstrate a “reasonably informed and considered decision” rooted in specific facts. By citing Smith and Seeger, the panel signaled that thoroughness—not perfection—is the touchstone.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Prima facie case uncontested. The Township conceded for summary-judgment purposes that Porter satisfied the first two McDonnell Douglas steps. The only live question was pretext.
Application of Honest-Belief Rule.
  a. The Township hired a licensed investigator who conducted multiple days of surveillance.
  b. Video evidence depicted Porter lifting and operating a concrete saw (≈16 lbs), bending, and instructing others—activities inconsistent with his medical restrictions (no lifting >10 lbs, no digging, no overhead work).
  c. Supervisors compared the saw with a similar Township-owned saw and confirmed approximate weight via manufacturer specifications, satisfying the “reasonably informed” requirement.
  d. A pre-disciplinary hearing with union representation offered Porter a chance to respond, satisfying procedural fairness.
Rebuttal Failure. Porter’s counterarguments—(i) the saw was never weighed at the hearing, and (ii) “chalk lining” is light duty—did not create a factual dispute because the standard is employer’s honest belief, not factual certitude.
Comparator Evidence Absent. To show “insufficient to motivate,” Porter needed examples of non-FMLA employees who violated medical restrictions yet were not terminated. He offered none.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

Reinforced Investigatory Latitude. Employers in the Sixth Circuit may rely on reasonably thorough—but not necessarily exhaustive—investigations to justify adverse actions against employees suspected of leave abuse.
Employer Burden Clarified. The decision clarifies that documentation such as video surveillance, corroborative equipment specifications, and a disciplined process (pre-disciplinary conference) typically suffices to invoke the honest-belief rule.
Employee Litigation Strategy Narrowed. Plaintiffs must produce evidence that the employer’s investigation was objectively unreasonable or tainted by discriminatory intent; merely contesting factual accuracy is inadequate.
Union & CBA Considerations. The opinion indirectly underscores that unionized employees must navigate internal grievance procedures that, if procedurally fair, fortify the employer’s honest-belief defense.
Potential for Cross-Pollination. While unpublished, the reasoning will likely be persuasive in neighboring circuits lacking clear guidance on the honest-belief rule, as well as in ADA or Title VII contexts where similar pretext analyses apply.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

FMLA Retaliation: Occurs when an employer penalizes an employee for exercising the right to take protected medical leave.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: A three-step burden-shifting test: (1) employee proves a basic (prima facie) case; (2) employer offers a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason; (3) employee shows the reason is a pretext.
Honest-Belief Rule: Even if the employer’s reason is ultimately mistaken, it defeats pretext if the employer honestly and reasonably believed the reason at the time of the decision, based on specific facts.
Pretext: A false reason given by an employer to hide unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
Summary Judgment: Disposition without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

5. Conclusion

Porter v. Jackson Township Highway Department advances Sixth Circuit jurisprudence by providing a concrete blueprint for employers invoking the honest-belief rule when confronting FMLA-leave abuse allegations. The court emphasizes that:

The investigatory process need only be reasonable and particularized, not flawless.
Video surveillance and corroborative measures can establish a good-faith basis for termination.
Employees opposing summary judgment must supply affirmative evidence that the employer’s belief was unreasonable or that comparable employees were treated more favorably.

The decision thus strengthens employers’ ability to discipline perceived leave abuse while reminding employees and counsel that challenging pretext requires more than disputing the underlying facts—it demands evidence that the employer’s belief was not honestly held. Given the frequency of FMLA retaliation claims, the analytical clarity provided here will likely influence litigation strategy across the Sixth Circuit and beyond.