JAY PEMBERTON v. BELL’S BREWERY, INC., identified on initiating documents as Bell’s Comstock Brewery - Articles

All Content

JAY PEMBERTON v. BELL’S BREWERY, INC., identified on initiating documents as Bell’s Comstock Brewery

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 4, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Ryan E. Myers, CARLA D. AIKENS, P.L.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Aaron D. Lindstrom, BARNES & THORNBURG, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Carla D. Aikens, CARLA D. AIKENS, P.L.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jennifer J. Stocker, BARNES & THORNBURG, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): THAPAR, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Jay Pemberton brought federal and state claims against his former employer, Bell’s Brewery. He claims the Brewery failed to accommodate him, discriminated against him based on his age and disability, and retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity—all in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101; Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1202; Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment to the Brewery, holding that Pemberton failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies for certain claims and failed to establish pretext for others. On appeal, we are tasked with addressing, among other things, the adequacy of his Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the prima facie requirements for disability discrimination claims. Because the district court did not err in granting the Brewery’s motion for summary judgment, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: