FAISAL G. KHALAF, PH.D. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; BENNIE FOWLER; JAY ZHOU - Articles

All Content

FAISAL G. KHALAF, PH.D. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; BENNIE FOWLER; JAY ZHOU

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Aug 31, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Sarah E. Harrington, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Thomas G. Hungar, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Sarah E. Harrington, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, Carol A. Laughbaum, Raymond J. Sterling, STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Thomas G. Hungar, Jacob T. Spencer, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., Elizabeth P. Hardy, Thomas J. Davis, KIENBAUM, HARDY, VIVIANO, PELTON & FORREST, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross- Appellants.

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

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves claims of national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2101 et seq., and racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The claims were brought by Faisal G. Khalaf, Ph.D., who is of Lebanese descent, against Ford Motor Company, his former employer, and Bennie Fowler and Jay Zhou, his former supervisors at Ford. Specifically, Dr. Khalaf contends that, he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race or national origin, and that defendants illegally retaliated against him, after he engaged in protected activities, by demoting him, placing him on a “Performance Enhancement Plan” (PEP), and ultimately terminating his employment.

For the reasons outlined below, we hold that the district court erred in denying defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we REVERSE and direct the district court to enter judgment in favor of defendants. Based on this holding, we need not address remittitur.

Attachments: