Jeff Smith v. City of Union OH Police Dept
Jeff Smith, a seasoned officer with the City of Union, Ohio, Police Department, has been embroiled in a legal battle alleging age discrimination and retaliation. The case has traversed various legal avenues and is currently under the purview of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Background
Smith commenced his service with the Union Police Department in 2003. In May 2020, he was involved in incidents that led to allegations of misconduct, prompting an internal investigation. The investigation culminated in his termination on August 3, 2020. Smith challenged this decision through a union grievance, asserting that the termination lacked just cause. An arbitrator ruled in his favor in June 2021, mandating his reinstatement with full back pay and seniority, subject to a three-day suspension.
Fitness-for-Duty Examination and Allegations of Retaliation
Upon his reinstatement, the City required Smith to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty examination before resuming his duties. The City cited concerns about his previous statements regarding stress during the May 2020 incidents and his extended absence from active duty as reasons for this requirement. Smith complied and was eventually cleared to return to work in August 2021.
Legal Proceedings
In April 2022, Smith filed a lawsuit against the City, alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Ohio state law. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the City in May 2024, concluding that Smith failed to demonstrate that the City’s actions constituted materially adverse employment actions or that there was a causal connection between his age and the employment decisions.
Appeal and EEOC Involvement
Smith appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In October 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submitted an amicus brief supporting Smith’s position. The EEOC argued that the requirement for a psychological fitness-for-duty examination could be viewed as a materially adverse action in the context of a retaliation claim under the ADEA.
Current Status
As of March 20, 2025, the Sixth Circuit has yet to issue a ruling on Smith’s appeal. The case underscores the complexities surrounding employment law, particularly in discerning what constitutes a materially adverse action in retaliation claims. The forthcoming decision is anticipated to provide further clarity on these legal standards.
