The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has revived discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former Hamtramck Public Schools administrator, holding that even paid administrative leave can constitute an adverse employment action when it is prolonged, stripping an employee of duties and visibility, or is not tied to a genuine, timely investigation. The decision, issued on June 15, 2026, in Ahmed v. Hamtramck Public Schools, is an important reminder for employers that "we kept paying them" is no longer a reliable defense to discrimination or retaliation claims arising from investigatory leave.
The Case
The plaintiff, a former administrator for Hamtramck Public Schools, alleged that after taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), she was placed on paid administrative leave and was never reinstated. She claimed the school district never gave her notice of any specific misconduct allegations, never afforded her an opportunity to respond, and never completed a genuine investigation – despite keeping her on leave for more than one year. She brought claims for national origin and sex discrimination under Title IX1, along with FMLA retaliation, and pointed to male colleagues and colleagues outside of her protected class who allegedly avoided similar treatment for similar conduct. The district court dismissed her claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed.
The Court's Reasoning
- Paid leave can be an adverse action. Applying the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the panel rejected the notion that paid leave is categorically non-adverse. Leave that is extended, strips the employee of job duties, staff contact, or visibility, or carries reputational harm can satisfy Muldrow's "some harm" standard – a materially lower bar than the older "significant" or "material" disadvantage standards some courts previously required.
- An investigation in name only cuts against the employer. The Sixth Circuit found it significant that the administrator was allegedly never told what she was accused of, never given a chance to respond, and was left on leave for one year without resolution. Specifically, the Court noted that "the lack of any investigation strengthens Ahmed's retaliation claim." In other words, paid administrative leave that is not anchored to a real, documented, and reasonably prompt investigatory process leaves an employer far more exposed than one that is.
- Timing right after FMLA leave is highly probative. The Sixth Circuit allowed the FMLA retaliation claim to proceed based on temporal proximity, endorsing a "first opportunity to retaliate" theory: even where months have passed since protected activity, adverse action taken at the employer's first real chance to act can support an inference of retaliatory motive.
- Comparator evidence needs only be plausible at the pleading stage. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court applied too demanding a standard by requiring comparators to be similarly situated "in all respects." At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a plaintiff need only to plausibly allege that comparators engaged in similar conduct and were treated differently. Thus, weak comparator allegations should not be assumed to fail early; they may survive to discovery.
- A legitimate business dispute does not defeat a retaliation claim on its own. Even though plaintiff's leave arguably arose from a separate, controversial personnel dispute, the Sixth Circuit held that this did not foreclose the possibility that her FMLA leave was also a motivating factor, which is enough to state a claim.
Practical Guidance for Employers
- Treat extended paid administrative leave as a potential adverse action, not a risk-free tool, particularly where it removes an employee from managerial duties or public-facing responsibilities, thus causing reputational harm.
- Build and document a real investigatory process for any leave tied to alleged misconduct: give the employee notice of the allegations, a meaningful opportunity to respond, and a reasonably prompt resolution.
- Scrutinize the timing of any adverse action taken at or near an employee's return from FMLA or other protected leave, and be prepared to document an independent, non-retaliatory business justification.
- Before disciplining an employee or placing one on leave, audit how similarly situated employees of different protected characteristics were treated for comparable conduct; inconsistent treatment is increasingly exploitable even at the pleading stage.
- Track Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, a case pending before the Supreme Court on whether Title IX even provides a private right of action for employment discrimination claims; the outcome could reshape this area for educational employers.
Baker Donelson attorneys are actively monitoring developments in this area. For questions or more information about this issue, please contact a member of the Firm's Labor & Employment Group.
1 While Ahmed arose under Title IX in the education context, the panel's adverse-action analysis rests on Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a Title VII decision, so its reasoning has implications for employers well beyond schools and universities.