MONICA GRAY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; JOE KYLE - Articles

All Content

MONICA GRAY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; JOE KYLE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Nov 20, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Laren E. Knoll, THE KNOLL LAW FIRM LLC, Dublin, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jeffrey S. Hiller, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Laren E. Knoll, THE KNOLL LAW FIRM LLC, Dublin, Ohio, Daniel I. Bryant, BRYANT LEGAL, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Hiller, Andrew Klaben-Finegold, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Georgina C. Yeomans, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Attorneys 6: ON PETITION FOR REHEARING: Jeffrey S. Hiller, Andrew Klaben-Finegold, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 7: ON RESPONSE: Laren E. Knoll, THE KNOLL LAW FIRM LLC, Dublin, Ohio, Daniel I. Bryant, BRYANT LEGAL, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 8: ON AMICUS BRIEF IN LIGHT OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING: Benjamin M. Flowers, Shams H. Hirji, ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE FLOWERS LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): GILMAN, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

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

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Monica Gray helped a colleague secure an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The colleague’s supervisor opposed the accommodation and, a few months later, reported Gray for timecard falsification. State Farm investigated the report and fired Gray. Gray then sued for retaliation under the ADA and Ohio law, claiming that the supervisor singled her out for conduct widespread in the agency because she had helped her colleague advocate for an accommodation. But the district court granted State Farm summary judgment, reasoning that the company had an honest belief that Gray had engaged in misconduct. Because Gray can proceed on a theory of vicarious liability based on the supervisor’s alleged bias, we reverse.

Attachments: