What does an employee victory look like in a real employment lawsuit? These six published decisions show how courts evaluated disability accommodation, retaliation, sexual harassment, race discrimination, medical leave, and unpaid overtime.
Each example comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which hears federal appeals from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee. The cases arose in different workplaces and states. Federal and state claims can have different requirements.
About these examples: These are educational summaries of public court decisions, not case results obtained by Thompson Legal LLC. Past results do not predict the outcome of another matter. Each summary describes the identified decision; it is not a complete account of every later development or a substitute for advice about current law and your facts.
Disability accommodation: EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC (2018)
What happened: Linda Atkins, a Dollar General employee with diabetes, asked to keep orange juice at her register. Her request was denied under store policy. During episodes of low blood sugar while working alone, she drank store orange juice, paid for it, and reported what happened. The company fired her for violating its policy.
Employee victory: A jury found disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The Sixth Circuit affirmed an award of $27,565 in back pay and $250,000 in compensatory damages.
Why it matters: A workplace rule does not, by itself, resolve an employer’s duty to consider a reasonable accommodation. The request, employer response, and reason for discipline can be central evidence. Read the court’s opinion: EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018).
Retaliation: Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost, Inc. (2019)
What happened: Sheryl Hubbell complained of sex discrimination and filed EEOC charges. Evidence at trial described increased scrutiny, disciplinary write-ups, limits on additional work hours, and ultimately her termination.
Employee victory: The jury found unlawful retaliation. The Sixth Circuit upheld the retaliation verdict and punitive damages, while reducing the attorney-fee award.
Why it matters: Retaliation is a distinct claim. This was a victory on retaliation, not a finding that every underlying allegation of sex discrimination was proved. Records showing what changed after a complaint can help explain the sequence of events. Read the court’s opinion: Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost, Inc., 933 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2019).
Sexual harassment and retaliation: EEOC v. New Breed Logistics (2015)
What happened: Three women objected to a supervisor’s sexual harassment. A male coworker supported their complaints. The workers were fired, and the EEOC brought suit on their behalf.
Employee victory: The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict and an award exceeding $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Why it matters: Opposition to harassment can include telling a harassing supervisor to stop; it is not limited to filing a formal written charge. Witnesses who support a coworker’s complaint may also have retaliation protections. The facts and applicable legal requirements still matter. Read the court’s opinion: EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, 783 F.3d 1057 (6th Cir. 2015).
Race discrimination: Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Service Department (2008)
What happened: Ronald Madden, a Black employee, was fired for setting off firecrackers at work. Evidence showed that white employees had engaged in similar conduct known to supervisors without comparable discipline.
Employee victory: After a bench trial, the district court found intentional race discrimination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment, including back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages.
Why it matters: Evidence about how an employer treats comparable misconduct can help test whether its stated explanation is the real reason for a termination. The circumstances of the other employees and the decision-making process are important. Read the court’s opinion: Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Service Department, 549 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2008).
Medical leave: Wallace v. FedEx Corp. (2014)
What happened: Tina Wallace sought medical leave. FedEx requested medical certification but did not adequately explain the consequences of failing to return it. She was later terminated for absences.
Employee victory: The jury found interference with her Family and Medical Leave Act rights. The Sixth Circuit affirmed liability and restored the jury’s $173,000 back-pay award after the trial court had reduced it.
Why it matters: Required notices and the harm caused by deficient notice can affect an FMLA claim. This decision does not make medical certification optional: employees should pay close attention to requests, deadlines, and communications about leave. Read the court’s opinion: Wallace v. FedEx Corp., 764 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2014).
Unpaid overtime: Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC (2021)
What happened: Cable technicians brought a collective action alleging that their employers underreported their work hours and failed to pay overtime. A jury found willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Employee victory: Following multiple appeals and a recalculation of damages, the Sixth Circuit largely affirmed the revised judgment in 2021 and required entry of judgment for an additional worker who had been excluded.
Why it matters: Time records, pay records, and evidence of how work hours were reported can be important in wage cases. The procedural history also shows why a reported verdict and the final calculation of compensation are not always the same. Read the court’s November 8, 2021 opinion: Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, Nos. 20-6289/6347.
Discuss your workplace situation
No two employment disputes are identical. A useful starting point is a dated timeline, the employer’s explanation, relevant policies, and documents you lawfully possess. Keep original messages and records intact. Filing requirements and deadlines vary, so seek advice promptly.
Thompson Legal LLC represents employees and individuals in Louisville, Cincinnati, and throughout Kentucky and Ohio. Request a case evaluation to discuss your circumstances.