Dennis A. Badertscher v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company

File Name: 11a0010n.06
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
No. 09-4486
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS A. BADERTSCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
/
Before: MARTIN, NORRIS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Dennis A. Badertscher, who
is male, was fifty-two years old when defendant-appellee Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company fired him. Badertscher sued for reverse gender discrimination and age discrimination.
The district court granted Procter & Gamble’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. We
AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Badertscher was an at-will employee at the Lima, Ohio detergent plant of Procter & Gamble.
In mid-December 2006, Procter & Gamble began an investigation into reports of interpersonal
problems at the plant. Members of the management conducted a series of interviews with
employees. Six employees stated that they had witnessed Badertscher engage in inappropriate

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 09-4486
Badertscher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
Page 2
behavior toward a female employee, five employee stated that he did not wear personal protective
equipment, and five employees stated that they had witnessed him sleeping on the job. Procter &
Gamble terminated Badertscher’s employment based on the combination of three categories of
misconduct: sexual harassment, violation of safety rules, and sleeping on the job. Eight members
of management were involved in the decision.
II. ANALYSIS
This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. DiCarlo v. Potter,
358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 2004). To grant a motion for summary judgment, a court must find that
“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Badertscher’s claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
and Ohio state law and his claim of gender discrimination under Ohio state law may be analyzed
together because the same analytical framework applies to both the federal and Ohio statutory
provisions at issue. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1992). Title VII
single-motive claims proceeding on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the burden-shifting
framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and modified by
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). First, the plaintiff must
establish a prima facie case by showing that “(1) he or she was a member of a protected class; (2)
he or she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he or she was qualified for the position; and
(4) he or she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 09-4486
Badertscher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
Page 3
similarly-situated, non-protected employees.” DiCarlo, 358 F.3d at 415. Once the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case, the defendant then bears the burden of production to put forth a
“legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the complained of adverse treatment. Id. at 414 (citing
Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). If the defendant meets this burden, then the burden of production shifts
back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proffered reason was a “pretext for discrimination.” Id.
at 414-15 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253).
The district court’s decision granting Procter & Gamble’s motion for summary judgment was
based on proper legal analysis. Procter & Gamble articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for his termination that Badertscher failed to rebut. Badertscher failed to raise genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Procter & Gamble’s stated reason for firing him was a pretext for
discrimination.
III. CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --