She blamed discrimination. Court pointed to missing I-9s and her team's mass departure
Multiple compliance failures sank a university HR chief's job and her discrimination lawsuit. A federal appeals court ruled her performance issues were real.
Wendy Davis ran human resources at the University of Toledo, managing everything from hiring to benefits to labor relations. But when a federal appeals court examined her tenure on January 22, 2026, the picture that emerged was one of repeated missteps across nearly every function she oversaw.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals catalogued what went wrong. Immigration paperwork was a mess, with up to a third of employees missing required I-9 forms. A union contract negotiation went sideways, producing an agreement the university couldn't afford. Federal family leave compliance had holes. The university's medical center couldn't fill jobs fast enough. And four of Davis' seven direct reports quit within a year, with three telling her boss the same story about micromanagement and poor morale.
Davis, who is Black, saw things differently. She argued her supervisor, Matt Schroeder, set her up to fail by denying resources and rejecting her proposals. When he fired her, she sued, claiming the university used performance as cover for racial discrimination.
The court wasn't persuaded. The university had budget problems, but it had been cutting HR funding for four or five years before Davis' termination, driven by declining enrollment. There was no evidence she was singled out. And while she pointed to proposals Schroeder rejected, like outsourcing immigration paperwork, the court noted she was hired to modernize HR through decisive action, not just present occasional ideas.
The university eventually adopted her immigration solution after her termination. The court found her focus on that single good idea missed the larger pattern of failures in her core responsibilities.
Davis also pointed to a White colleague who kept his job after his department failed an audit. David Cutri ran the university's auditing operation, and when it stumbled, Schroeder put him on a performance plan. Cutri improved quickly and stayed employed.
But the court said the comparison didn't hold. Cutri's department failed one assessment. Davis' issues were broader, spanning what the court called arguably two audits, a bargaining problem, recruitment delays, and departures from her own team. The court concluded the situations weren't comparable.
Davis also challenged why she didn't get a performance plan before termination. The court pointed out the university had no requirement to offer one. Its policy gave management discretion to progressively discipline employees but also gave sole discretion to suspend or terminate them. The university exercised its discretion differently for what the court characterized as a chronic underperformer versus a one-time straggler.
Her retaliation claim hit a procedural obstacle. Davis never mentioned retaliation in her original charge to Ohio civil rights officials or in her amended charge. She only raised it later in a subsequent position statement, claiming Schroeder punished her for documenting his deficiencies in hiring minorities and females. The court said that was too late. The system requires people to flag specific problems early so employers get notice and agencies can investigate. Her original charges described alleged mistreatment through budget cuts, sabotage, and excessive scrutiny but said nothing about speaking up on hiring practices.
The decision affirms that performance problems documented across time and multiple areas can withstand discrimination challenges. For HR leaders, the case underscores that execution matters, and that managing your own team counts as much as managing everyone else's.
The ruling also highlights a practical reality: when your direct reports leave with consistent complaints about your leadership, courts will view that as a legitimate performance concern.
