United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit under federal law antiretaliation provisions challenging a separation agreement offered by defendant to discharged employees, summary judgment for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is reversed where the district court erred in holding that the separation agreement constituted facial retaliation under the antiretaliation statutory provisions to the extent that it conditions severance pay on a promise not to file a charge with the EEOC, and the EEOC did not show a prima facie case of retaliation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/24/2006
• Published 10/24/2006

Judges

• Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge;  BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge;  COHN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Dean E. Westman, Kastner, Westman & Wilkins, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.  Daniel Travis Vail, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Dean E. Westman, Thomas Evan Green, Kastner, Westman & Wilkins, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.  Daniel Travis Vail, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.  Ann E. Reesman, McGuiness, Norris & Williams, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.