JEFF SMITH v. CITY OF UNION, OHIO - Articles

All Content

JEFF SMITH v. CITY OF UNION, OHIO

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 18, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Matthew D. Stokely, PICKREL, SCHAEFFER & EBELING CO., LPA, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Benjamin J. Reeb, BRICKER GRAYDON LLP, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: Steven Winkelman, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Matthew D. Stokely, PICKREL, CHAEFFER & EBELING CO., LPA, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Benjamin J. Reeb, Beverly A. Meyer, Arthur P. Schoulties, BRICKER GRAYDON LLP, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Steven Winkelman, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): CLAY, BUSH, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Officer Jeff Smith was the City of Union’s oldest and longest-tenured police officer. The City fired him after it found that he had violated several police department policies over a two-day span. An arbitrator later ordered the City to reinstate Officer Smith because, in its view, the City had overreacted by terminating him for minor and excusable mistakes. But the City delayed his return for two more months, requiring him to take a fitness-for-duty examination and acting slowly once he passed it. By the time the City allowed him back, it had promoted a younger officer and secured raises for every officer except Officer Smith. Officer Smith sued the City under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and its Ohio counterpart. He alleged the City fired him because of his age, not his performance, and then delayed his return to retaliate against him for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court granted summary judgment to the City on both claims, and Officer Smith appealed. But on this record, a jury could view the facts and agree with Officer Smith. We reverse.

Attachments: