detrimental acts. Ms. Dietrick’s refusal to acknowledge this simple request, shows an immaturity in working within a team structure. 11 . To prove its legitimate, non-discriminatoiy reason for terminating Tuttle, Metro introduced testimony and documents to describe many of Tuttle’s work deficiencies while she was employed as an Account Clerk III. Additionally, to meet its burden of production on that issue, Metro relied upon the factual findings of the Metro Civil Service Commission, which ruled that Metro had just cause to terminate Tuttle. Those findings, however, do not preclude Tuttle’s claims here because the Metro Civil Service Commission did not consider the issue of age discrimination in its decision. See Cooper v. City of North Olmsted, 795 F.2d 1265, 1268-70 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, Metro argues that it is entitled
holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding that a surety was not an employer holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding that an administrative agency or a state courts finding that an employer had just cause to terminate a plaintiff is not preclusive with regard to the plaintiffs discrimination claim against the employer holding that an employer must establish all three elements of the defense with regard to its employees in order to prevail