Retaliation Claim Loses Despite Misdirected Text

Takeaway: Employers should be careful to avoid sending written communications that could support employment law claims.

When an employee cannot show a causal connection between a communication and an adverse action, the employer should be able to obtain summary judgment on the claims, a recent federal appeals court decision shows.

Yunion is a nonprofit organization that provides educational programming and Family Services to at-risk youth in the Detroit area. Yunion relies on grants and public funding to operate. The nonprofit had a relationship with Wayne County, Mich., through contracts that funded its diversion department, which supported students with an elevated risk of juvenile delinquency. 

While Yunion historically relied on independent contractors to provide services, in 2018, Yunion and Wayne County implemented a new model that would fund a full-time case manager position. Yunion relied on projected Wayne County reimbursements to maintain this position.

The plaintiff had been an independent contractor with Yunion, serving as an educator. When the full-time case manager position opened, the plaintiff applied and got the job. In this new role, she monitored the students who worked with the diversion department and helped direct them to community resources, performing onsite filing to keep track of assistance to students. She was a strong employee who did not experience issues with her performance. 

In May 2019, a pipe burst on the second floor of the Yunion’s building, which caused considerable water damage to the floors below. The building needed professional cleaners to remediate hazardous conditions. 

Yunion’s executive director sought to alleviate employee anxieties by emailing staff to assure them that, according to the building director, the environment was safe. Despite this assurance, the plaintiff was unconvinced. She replied all to the email that the presence of air purifiers typically indicated the existence of mold and asbestos.

Over the next few months, the plaintiff renewed her concerns about building safety to the executive director, informing her of the plaintiffs’ repeated symptoms of a runny and stuffy nose, sore throat, sinusitis, and headaches. The plaintiff concluded that the building’s air quality was to blame for her ailments, and told the executive director of her plan to be out of the office for the day.

Yunion’s director of operations sent the plaintiff documents that explained the building was safe, and informed her that if she were to continue working remotely because of a medical condition, she would need to provide a doctor’s note. The plaintiff challenged these findings and stated that she would keep working remotely and obtain a doctor's note. She then submitted a doctor’s note that described possible developing allergic asthma for which mold is a trigger.

The executive director was not satisfied because the doctor’s note did not say that the plaintiff needed to work remotely. The plaintiff provided a second doctor’s note that recommended that she work offsite, but did not state it was medically necessary. She requested an accommodation to work remotely, stating that Yunion could direct interns to take on her filing responsibilities.

Newsletter: Subscribe to Workplace Compliance

In the midst of these email exchanges, the executive director mistakenly sent the plaintiff a text insinuating that she would be fired. The executive director intended to send the text to the director of operations, and did not realize that she had mistakenly texted the plaintiff until the subsequent litigation.

The plaintiff again requested to work remotely, outlining the history of her health concerns and accommodation requests. The executive director granted this request and the plaintiff worked remotely as a part-time employee for approximately three weeks. Yunion increased another employee’s hours to compensate for the plaintiff's unfulfilled onsite case file management duties.

When the director of operations provided the plaintiff with additional documentation about the remediation efforts, she returned to in-person, full-time work. At the start of 2020, Yunion moved to a new office building. During the pandemic, Yunion’s diversion department took a significant financial hit. Yunion tried to shift operations to accommodate the remote-working world. 

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity 

However, in September 2020, Wayne County informed Yunion that it could no longer provide any virtual services. So Yunion decided to shift all of the case managers, including the plaintiff, to independent contractors. 

For the plaintiff, this would result in her being paid hourly instead of salaried, working less and losing her employee benefits and holidays. Yunion offered her the choice of becoming an independent contractor or accepting a severance package. The plaintiff rejected both options, effectively ending her employment. 

She then filed a lawsuit against Yunion claiming discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination under federal and state law. Yunion filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff could not show disability-related harassment, and could not show failure to accommodate because her onsite file management duties were essential to her position. 

With regard to her retaliation claims, the plaintiff argued that short time period between her requested accommodation in late 2019 and her termination in the fall of 2020, and the executive director’s text message, showed causation. 

The court determined, however, that the time period between the accommodation requests and termination was too long to show causation. Similarly, the executive director’s text message, while intemperate, was sent long before termination and thus did not show retaliation. 

As a result, the 6th Circuit upheld the district court's judgment.

Kellar v. The Yunion Inc., 6th Cir., No. 25-1136 (Oct. 31, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.