has established a prima facie case under each theory. Therefore, the Court will move directly to analyzing MNP’s proffered reason for firing Zakaria. 2 MNP has offered a non-discriminatory reason for firing Zakaria — namely, that it was downsizing its workforce and it fired Zakaria because he had the third worst attendance record during the twelve months prior to the layoffs. (See S.J. Motion, ECF # 12 at Pg. ID 75-77.) However, on this record, there is a material factual dispute as to whether this reason was a pretext for discrimination in violation of the FMLA. As an initial matter, there is a question as to whether there was a “basis in fact” for MNP’s asserted justification for firing Zakaria. Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419, 431 (6th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). When the evidence is viewed in the light most
holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that employers report to state employment agency providing a reason for termination that was different than employers proffered reason did not create a genuine and material issue of fact as to pretext particularly when evidence showed the inaccurate reporting benefitted employee holding that plaintiff was entitled to submit coworkers assessment of his work to show employers stated factual basis for adverse action was pretext for discrimination holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action