Supervisor bias? Even accurate reports won't protect you now
Sixth Circuit revives ADA-retaliation claim over selective timekeeping scrutiny; ruling sends clear signal to HR: investigate for bias, not just misconduct.
A routine timecard audit at State Farm turned into a cautionary tale for HR departments everywhere. On Nov. 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in an ADA retaliation case and sent it back to trial, ruling that a jury could reasonably conclude a supervisor's selective scrutiny helped trigger an employee's termination.
The case centers on Monica Gray, a 15-year claim specialist who had helped a coworker secure an overtime accommodation under the ADA. After the coworker filed an EEOC charge – with Gray's encouragement – things shifted. When Gray's regular manager took vacation, a fill-in supervisor named Joe Kyle took a closer look at Gray's timesheets. He compared her manual time entries to computer activity logs, spotted discrepancies, and flagged them to HR as potential falsification.
HR then ran a fuller investigation. Investigators pulled building access records, cross-referenced computer activity, and found more mismatches than Kyle's initial report had surfaced. Some entries showed Gray claiming to work when badge records indicated she wasn't in the building. State Farm fired her.
Gray sued for retaliation, arguing Kyle had singled her out. She claimed that similar timekeeping issues existed among other employees on the team but were handled quietly – as coaching rather than escalation. State Farm countered that the company had an honest belief that Gray had falsified time, and the district court agreed, granting summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit took a different angle. The court acknowledged that decisionmakers genuinely believed misconduct had occurred. But it emphasized something HR professionals sometimes overlook: a truthful report can still be the product of bias. If a supervisor reports accurate information but selectively targets one employee while overlooking similar conduct by others – and if that selective report sets off a chain reaction leading to termination – the employer can face liability.
The appeals court found enough evidence for a jury to question the process. Gray faced heightened scrutiny shortly after her protected activity. Kyle acted at his first available opportunity while covering her team. And there was documentation of at least one coworker with comparable timecard entries who received informal coaching rather than an HR escalation. Those facts, viewed together, could persuade a jury that Kyle's bias influenced the investigation and termination.
A forceful dissent disagreed, arguing the majority had essentially rewritten Gray's case on appeal and that the independent HR investigation had uncovered additional, serious misconduct unrelated to Kyle's initial report. That disagreement highlights how fact-intensive these cases are and how differently experienced judges can weigh the same evidence.
For human resources leaders, the practical takeaway is straightforward: process now matters as much as outcome. When any supervisor – especially one recently assigned to a team or with known friction – raises a concern, your investigation should do more than confirm the underlying facts. Document how the issue surfaced, compare the conduct against similarly situated employees, explain why escalation was chosen over coaching, and explicitly address whether protected activity preceded the concern. Those steps strengthen your legal footing and demonstrate that discipline flows from consistent, neutral criteria rather than individual supervisor bias.
The ruling does not declare Gray innocent or guilty. It simply says a jury should decide, based on how her case was handled.
