govinfo:USCOURTS-kywd-3_24-cv-00206-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
AT LOUISVILLE 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00206-CRS 
 
ROBERT RENO PLAINTIFF 
 
v. 
 
UofL HEALTH, INC.  DEFENDANT 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
This action is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, Robert Reno, worked for 
defendant University Medical Center, Inc. (“UofL Health”) as a nurse manager. UofL Health fired 
Reno in November 2023. Thereafter, he filed this lawsuit. He claims that UofL Health violated the 
Kentucky Civil Rights Act by firing him based on his disabilities. He also claims that UofL Health 
fired him because he  sought FMLA leave, which he took in the wake of having disclosed his 
disabilities.  
 UofL Health has moved for summary judgment on both claims. It has made three main 
arguments: (1) Reno should be judicially estopped from prosecuting this case; (2) Reno has failed 
to establish a prima facie case with respect to both his claims; and (3) Reno must but has failed to 
show that UofL Health’s proffered, non-discriminatory reason for firing him is pretextual. Reno 
has filed a response in opposition and UofL Health has filed a reply. Thus, the Motion is ripe. For 
the reasons set out below, UofL He alth’s arguments fail to persuade. As a result, the Court will 
deny its Motion for Summary Judgment.  
BACKGROUND 
A. Facts Relating to Judicial Estoppel  
UofL Health’s judicial estoppel argument is rooted in Reno’s collateral bankruptcy 
proceeding. At the outset, UofL Health asserted that that Reno should be estopped from 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
prosecuting his discrimination claims because he failed to disclose this lawsuit in his bankruptcy 
case. Motion, DN 21-1 at PageID# 83. In response, Reno demonstrated that he did, in fact, disclose 
this lawsuit by amendment and so UofL Health’s argument had no basis in fact. Response, DN 26 
at PageID# 329–30 (citing 06/24/25 Amendment, DN 26-9). Apparently, Reno’s disclosure which 
came some three years after his petition was filed and after his Chapter 13 plan was approved drew 
no objection from his creditors, the trustee, or the bankruptcy court.  
Nevertheless, in this case, Reno’s showing f orced UofL Health to abandon its initial 
argument. Accordingly, it made a new argument in its reply brief, relying on different facts and 
different law to support its argument. Now, UofL Health contends that Reno’s conduct still smacks 
of dishonesty, and he should still be estopped from pursuing his case . Specifically, UofL Health 
contends that Reno would not have disclosed this lawsuit but for UofL Health’s having called him 
out on it during this case. Reply, DN 29 at PageID# 437. Thus, according to UofL Health , Reno 
never acted with candor which warrants estopping him here. Id. at PageID# 438. 
B. Facts Relating to Reno’s Discrimination Claims 
1. Reno’s Qualifications and Job Performance 
The record before the Court shows that Reno is an experienced nurse who was promoted 
twice by UofL Health. In fact, he had over nine years of experience when UofL Health hired him 
in July 2020. Resume, DN 26 -2. During his first year of employment with UofL  Health, he was 
promoted to a charge nurse, then to shift coordinator, and finally to nursing manager. Reno Dep., 
DN 2 6-1 at PageID# 350. Reno worked  as a nursing manager for the next two years  without 
complaint, without disciplinary action against him, and having been told he was performing well. 
Id. at PageID# 364.  
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
2. Events Preceding Reno’s Termination  
In late August 2023, Reno’s supervisors received a complaint from a staff member about 
his leadership and management style. Email, DN 21 -3. As a result of this complaint, Reno met 
with his supervisors. Reno Dep., DN 26 -1 at PageID# 357. In that meeting, it was decided that 
UofL Health would hold focus groups to collect feedback from Reno’s staff about their 
experiences under Reno’s leadership. Id. Shortly thereafter, Reno met again with his supervisor. 
Reno Dep., DN 26-1 at PageID# 357. In that meeting, Reno disclosed he had anxiety and explained 
that it had been increasing, which was impacting his work. Id. at PageID# 360. Reno’s supervisor 
suggested that he take FMLA leave. Id. Reno applied for FMLA leave on September 6, 2023. Id.  
UofL Health went forward with the focus groups, conducting one the next day on 
September 7, 2023 and second one a few days later on September 11, 2023. Id. at PageID# 362. 
UofL Health reduced the information it learned in these groups into aggregated summaries,  
generalizing statements that were made without indicating much more than concerns about Reno’s 
management style. Focus Group Summaries, DN 21 -4. On November 3 , 2023, UofL Health 
decided to fire Reno. He was on FMLA leave at this time. 11/03/2023 Email, DN 21 -5. Reno 
returned from leave on November 5, 2023.  UofL fired him on November 7, 2023. The reason it 
gave to Reno was that it “lost faith in [his] abilities as a leader[.]” Reno Dep., DN 26-1 at PageID# 
363.  
UofL Health did not give Reno a chance to improve or otherwise respond to the comments 
made in the focus groups despite its progressive discipline policy which applied to him and despite 
UofL Health’s insistence that Reno follow that policy with respect to all UofL Health employees 
under his supervision. Reno Affidavit, DN 26-8.   
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
APPLICABLE STANDARDS 
Summary judgment is appropriate when, for each claim on which judgment is sought, 
“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and UofL Health, as the movant, is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) . UofL Health  bears the initial burden of 
demonstrating the lack of genuine issues of material fact.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 
322 (1986). It may do so by demonstrating that Reno lacks evidence to support an essential element 
of his case. Ford v. GMC, 305 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2002).  
If UofL Health satisfies this burden, Reno then “‘must set forth specific facts showing that 
there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Pittman v. Experian Information Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 628 
(6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)). He must do 
so by pointing to sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in his favor . 
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. 
The Court views the facts contained in the record and all inferences that can be drawn from 
those facts in the light most favorable to Reno. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 
475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) ; Nat'l Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis Inc. , 253 F.3d 900, 907 (6th Cir. 
2001). The Court cannot weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the 
truth of any matter in dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Summary judgment may only be granted 
“if the record taken in its entirety could not convince a rational trier of fact to return a verdict in 
favor of the nonmoving party.” Cox v. Ky. DOT, 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Street v. 
J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1480 (6th Cir. 1989)). 
ANALYSIS 
A. Judicial Estoppel 
UofL Health’s judicial estoppel arguments fail for two reasons. Its first argument —Reno 
did not disclose this lawsuit in his bankruptcy —has no basis in fact. Its second argument —Reno 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
acted dishonestly and in bad faith—was improperly presented for the first time in a reply brief. As 
such, the argument imposed an unfair prejudice on Reno, who lacked the ability to respond. As 
well, the argument is deemed waived. For these reasons, the Court declines to entertain it. Ryan v. 
Hazel Park, 279 F. App'x 335, 339 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 
546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, this Court has found that an issue raised for the first time in 
a reply to a response brief in the district court is waived.”).  
Nor is UofL Health’s contention that Reno must have acted in bad faith particularly well -
taken. First, it essentially asks the Court to make a credibility judgment, i.e., to believe UofL 
Health’s assertion as to Reno’s intent and motive over any response or testimony that Reno might 
offer on this point. Such a determination would be improper at the summary judgment stage . 
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 
Second, UofL Health is not impacted by Reno’s failure to disclose this lawsuit. It did not 
expend resources to make this determination  and assert the argument only to have Reno cure the 
problem in the wake of UofL Health’s motion. Instead, the information as to Reno’s disclosure 
was available at the time UofL Health made its motion. Third, the impact of any failure to disclose 
this lawsuit as a potential asset would impact Reno’s creditors. UofL Health is not one of them. 
Yet, neither they, nor the bankrupt cy trustee nor the bankruptcy court mad e any objection to 
Reno’s disclosure even though it was made after his bankruptcy plan had been approved.  
Nevertheless, it remains that UofL Health waived its allegations as to Reno’s alleged 
dishonesty and bad faith by making them for the first time in a reply brief. In short, UofL Health 
has not presented a meritorious judicial estoppel argument.  
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
 
B. Discrimination and Retaliation Claims 
Contrary to UofL Health’s argument, Reno has presented enough evidence to withstand 
summary judgment with respect to both of his discrimination claims. Reno’s claims are based on 
circumstantial evidence . The McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting analysis applies here. 
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 
F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir. 2004);  Hawkins v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty ., 716 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Ky. Ct. 
App. 2025). Under this framework, Reno must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination 
for both his KCRA claim and his FMLA retaliation claim. McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802. If he does 
so, the burden shifts to UofL Health to proffer a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Reno’s 
employment. Id. at 803. The burden of proof then shifts back to Reno to point  to evidence 
demonstrating that UofL’s reason is pretextual. Id. at 804.  
Both prima facie showings—the showing necessary to establish disability discrimination 
and FMLA retaliation—require Reno to present sufficient evidence of causation as a part of his 
prima facie showing. In this case, that evidence overlaps. The same is true for the evidence o n 
which the parties rely for their arguments about pretext. It too overlaps. UofL Health has 
challenged Reno’s proof on these elements for both claims. Thus, the arguments also somewhat 
overlap. To avoid repetition and redundancy, t he Court will address the element of causation for 
both claims together and will do the same for the parties’ arguments with respect to pretext. 
Beforehand, however, the Court will address UofL Health’s additional  challenge to Reno’s 
disability discrimination claim.  
1.  KCRA Disability Discrimination 
 To state a disability discrimination claim under the K CRA, a plaintiff must satisfy three 
elements: “(1) that he has a disability as defined by the Act; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to 
perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) that 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
7 
 
he suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability.” Hallahan v. Courier-Journal, 
138 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Ky. App. 2004 ).1 UofL Health contends that Reno  cannot show he was 
qualified for the nursing manager job , warranting the entry of summary judgment in his favor . 
More particularly, UofL Health asserts that Reno was not “ meeting h[is] employer’s legitimate 
expectations” nor was he “performing to h[is] employer’s satisfaction.” Motion, DN 21 -1 at 
PageID# 79. The basis for these assertion is UofL Health’s alleged loss of trust in Reno as a 
manager. Reply, DN 29 at PageID#433. This is, of course, the same reason UofL Health gave for 
firing Reno. As such, it cannot be used to de feat the first element of Reno’s prima facie showing 
and fails for this reason.  
 A court “may not consider the employer’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for taking an 
adverse employment action when analyzing the prima facie case.” Wexler v. White's Fine 
Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 574 (6th Cir. 2003). Doing so “would bypass the burden -shifting 
analysis and deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to show that the nondiscriminatory reason was 
in actuality a pretext designed to mask discrimination.” Id. The court must instead examine 
evidence independent of the employer’s proffered reason. Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo,  
206 F.3d 651, 660–61 (6th Cir. 2000). To do so, the Court must “focus on a plaintiff's objective 
qualifications to determine whether he or she is qualified for the relevant job .” Idemudia v. J.P. 
Morgan Chase, 434 Fed. Appx. 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2011). Here, the undisputed record as to Reno’s 
objective qualifications shows that he was qualified for the nursing manager job.  
 
1 UofL Health contends that the prima facie case contains a fourth element which requires Reno to show “that []he 
was replaced by a non-disabled person or that similarly situated non-disabled employees were treated more favorably.” 
Motion, DN 21-1 at PageID# 79 (citing Larison v. Home of the Innocents , 551 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018 )). 
The Court disagrees. The authority on which UofL Health relies, the Larison case, is at odds with the majority of 
decisions by the Kentucky Courts, including the seminal case, which is Hallahan, 138 S.W.3d 699.  
 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
8 
 
Reno holds a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree . He had worked as a nurse for 
approximately nine years  when UofL Health hired him . Resume, DN 26 -2. After having the 
opportunity to assess Reno’s performance , UofL Health promoted Reno twice: first to a charge 
nurse, then to a nursing manager. Reno Dep., DN 26-1 at PageID# 350; see Cicero v. Borg-Warner 
Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 2002) (considering evidence of the plaintiff’s promotion 
history to support a finding of qualification). Importantl y, there is no evidence  as to Reno’s 
objective qualifications that suggests he was unqualified for his position as a nurse manager. UofL 
Health has certainly failed to point to any such evidence, relying exclusively and improperly on 
its alleged reason for firing him for its argument that he was not qualified  
2. Causation 
Reno’s evidence that UofL Health terminated his employment because of his disability or 
in retaliation for exercising his rights under the FMLA is sufficient to survive summary judgment. 
Reno’s burden of proof at this stage is minimal; all he “‘must do is put forth some credible evidence 
that enables the court to deduce that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory action and 
the protected activity.’” Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274, 283 (6th Cir. 2012) 
(quoting Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324, 333 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Norton Healthcare, Inc. 
v. Turner, Nos. 2019-CA-0328-MR, 2019-CA-0569-MR, 2021 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 743, at 
*17 (Ky. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2021) (citing Hammond v. Norton Healthcare, Inc. , No. 2011 -CA-
000586-MR, 2012 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 768, 2012 WL 5039465, at *6 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 
2012)) (but-for standard of causation applies in Kentucky); Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 
Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 
The evidence upon which Reno relies includes UofL Health’s failure to follow its 
progressive discipline policy , Reno’s clean work history , and the proximity in time between 
Reno’s having sought FMLA leave upon disclosing his anxiety and his termination. In addition to 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
9 
 
these pieces of evidence  UofL Health’s gave Reno a favorable performance review as a nursing 
manager—a fact that UofL Health itself pointed out. Considering that Reno had no record of being 
disciplined before he was fired, UofL Health’s decision to depart from its progressive disciplinary 
police and fire Reno outright supports a reasonable inference that UofL Health fired him because 
he had disabilities requiring him to take FMLA leave. See, e.g., Pulliam v. Monessen Hearth Sys. 
Co., No. 2013-CA-000138-MR, 2014 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 619, at *12 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 
2014) (lack of disciplinary action together with receipt of increased job responsibilities supported 
inference of causation). Coupled with the timing between UofL Health’s learning about Reno’s 
disabilities and his required leave and its decision to fire him, this proof is sufficient to survive 
summary judgment. See Stein v. Atlas Indus., 730 Fed. App'x 313, 319 (6th Cir. 2018) (causation 
has been inferred up to “just shy of the ten -week mark”). Stated another way, a reasonable juror 
could rely on these facts to conclude that UofL Health fired Reno given his disabilities which did 
and would likely again require him to take FMLA leave.  
UofL Health’s arguments to the contrary fail to persuade. It has advanced three arguments: 
(1) Reno may not solely rely on temporal proximity to establish a causal link (2) Reno cannot 
connect his leave request to his termination because the grounds for his termination arose prior to 
the date on which his leave began and (3) Reno cannot controvert UofL Health’s legitimate 
intervening reason  for firing him which reason dispels any inference of retaliation based on 
temporal proximity. The first argument fails because Reno has not solely relied on temporal 
proximity to establish the element of causation . As noted above, he has also pointed to his clean 
work history, his consistent promotions, and UofL Health’s treating him differently by failing to 
follow its own progressive disciplinary policy.  
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
10 
 
UofL Health’s second argument fails because it has no basis in law. UofL Health relies on 
the date Reno started his FMLA leave, September 18, 2023, for its assertion that his termination 
could not have been in response to that event because the focus groups took place before that date. 
That is, the focus groups revealed grounds for termination before Reno exercised an FMLA right. 
Thus, according to UofL Health there can be no cause and effect relationship between the exercise 
of the FMLA right and its decis ion to fire Reno. Reply, DN 29 at PageID# 434 –35. But the date 
on which Reno started his FMLA leave is not the relevant date. The relevant date is the date on 
which he asked for leave. Smith v. ACO, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 721, 737 (E.D. Mich. 2005) . That 
date was September 6, 2023, before UofL Health allegedly established its reasons for firing Reno. 
Moreover, the record presented by UofL Health shows that it did not decide to fire Reno until 
November 3, 2023 well after he had requested and had taken FMLA leave. Thus, there is no record 
of UofL Health’s having decided to fire Reno before he requested and then took FMLA leave.  
UofL Health’s third and final challenge to Reno’s proof of causation is a new argument 
made for the first time in its reply brief. In its reply brief, UofL Health contends that the results of 
the focus groups provided it with a legitimate, intervening reason to fire Reno. And as such, that 
reason dispels any inference of retaliation that may be drawn given the temporal proximity between 
the protected activity and the termination. Reply, DN 29 at PageID# 435. This argument fails for 
two reasons. First, UofL Health waived it. Ryan v. Hazel Park, 279 F. App'x at 339. Second, Reno 
has not relied solely on temporal proximity to establish causation. 
3. Non-Discriminatory Reason and Pretext 
Once Reno has established a prima facie case for his claims, the burden shifts to UofL 
Health to proffer a non -discriminatory reason for firing Reno. This requisite applies to both of 
Reno’s discrimination claims and the reason is the same for both claims. That reason is lost faith 
in Reno as a leader. Motion, DN 21-1 at PageID# 76–78. There is no evident discriminatory motive 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
11 
 
in such a reason. As a result, the burden shifts back to Reno to proffer evidence on which a jury 
may conclude that the reason was not the true reason that UofL Health fired Reno, i.e. that UofL 
Health’s reason is pretextual.  
A plaintiff  may establish pretext indirectly by showing that the employer’s  proffered 
explanation is incredible. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 –805. This may be accomplished 
by showing that the reason “lacked a factual basis, did not actually motivate the adverse action, or 
was insufficient to motivate the adverse action.” Gray v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 145 F.4th 
630, 640 (6th Cir. 2025) ; Walker v. Commonwealth, 503 S.W.3d 165, 176 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016) . 
Here, Reno asserts that UofL Health’s alleged “lost faith” did not actually motivate the decision 
to fire him. Instead, according to Reno, UofL Health wanted to fire him because of his anxiety, a 
condition that did and would require him to take FMLA leave.  
To support this assertion, Reno relies on his work history at UofL Health and UofL Health’s 
failure to follow its own progressive disciplinary policy. Reno testified at his deposition that in his 
three years of employment at UofL Health, not only was he promoted twice, but he was also told 
he was performing well in the nursing manager role. He testified that UofL Health consistently 
instructed its supervisors to apply progressive discipline to employees before firing them. He also 
testified that the policy applied to him. Yet, despite being told that his termination was the result 
of performance issues, Reno was never placed on any progressive improvement plan or given an 
opportunity to address the alleged concerns with his leadership style. Instead, UofL Health simply 
fired Reno outright. And it did so effectively on the heels of his having exercised his FMLA rights 
and having disclosed his alleged disabling condition to his supervisors. UofL Health does not 
dispute the timing of events, the application of i ts disciplinary policy to Reno, or its failure to 
follow its own progressive disciplinary policy. As a result, the Court finds that Reno has mustered 
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
12 
 
sufficient proof on which a jury could conclude that UofL Health’s reason for firing him was 
pretextual. Craig v. Y & Y Snacks , 721 F.2d 77, 80 (3d Cir 1983)  (employer’s inconsistent 
application of policy coupled with the suspicious timing); Williams v. Brown-Forman Corp., No. 
2017-CA-002043-MR, 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 166, at *18 (App. Mar. 22, 2019)  
(suspicious timing supports an inference of discrimination). 
CONCLUSION 
 UofL Health has not presented the Court with sufficient grounds on which to grant 
summary judgment. Its only properly presented judicial estoppel argument lacks a basis in fact. Its 
attacks on Reno’s prima facie showing are ultimately unavailing. The objective evidence of his 
qualifications for the nursing manager job are undisputed. And, Reno has done just enough with 
respect to his proof of causation and pretext to withstand UofL Health’s motion. Accordingly , 
UofL Health’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 21) is DENIED as to all claims.  
 IT IS SO ORDERED.  
 
March 12, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-00206-CRS-RSE     Document 34     Filed 03/12/26     Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight