“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A state employee contended that his rights were violated when his agency retaliated against him for filing a disability discrimination claim.
What happened in this case?
Porter Smith worked as a corrections officer for the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) for almost twenty years. While on the job, he suffered a serious hip injury. When he was able to return to work, he sought a medical accommodation, which was denied and led to his termination from his job. He filed suit for disability discrimination under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and maintained that MOC had retaliated against him for raising his claims.
The case was resolved against Smith, who then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Among other arguments, MDOC raised for the first time the claim that the Rehabilitation Act does not prohibit retaliation against an employee for raising a discrimination claim. The case was considered on appeal by Trump judge John Bush, Biden judge Rachel Bloomekatz, and George HW Bush judge Alice Batchelder.
What did Trump judge Bush and the Sixth Circuit Majority Decide?
Trump judge Bush wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by Judge Batchelder, that rejected Smith’s appeal. They accepted MDOC’s claim that Section 504 does not prohibit retaliation by an employer when an employee raises a disability discrimination argument, as Smith did here. The November 2025 ruling was in Smith v MDOC.
What did Judge Bloomekatz say in dissent?
Judge Bloomekatz strongly dissented. She noted that for the first time, in supplemental briefing, MDOC sought to overturn “decades of established precedent in this court and our sister circuits” that recognizes that employees can sue their bosses under the Rehabilitation Act for retaliating against them for raising disability discrimination claims. She also explained that the district court was wrong in demanding that Smith prove that his raising a disability claim was the “sole” cause of the action taken against him, and that if he could prove that the action would not have occurred “but for” his raising a disability discrimination claim, that would have been sufficient. She would have sent the case back for retrial using the correct causation standard.
Why is the result harmful?
The ruling by Trump judge Bush and Judge Batchelder obviously harms Porter Smith’s efforts to receive compensation and justice for the discrimination he suffered. The decision also sets a precedent that weakens Section 504 and may well injure other employees retaliated against under the law, at least in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.