Charles Mickey worked at Zeidler Tool and Die Co. for 33 years. In October, 2004, when he was 64 years old, he was asked about his retirement plans. Shortly after that, he received a pay cut on the grounds that the company was not doing well. A younger manager, however, received a pay raise.

Mickey filed an EEOC charge of age discrimination. On the day the company learned of his charge, he was laid off. Financial records from the time indicated that Zeidler was profiting and advertising for new positions. Mickey brought suit in the U.S. District Court alleging age discrimination and retaliation.

The district court ruled in favor of the employer on the grounds that Mickey failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation, reasoning that there was not enough time between Mickey’s filing and the adverse employment action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati reversed the judge’s decision stating that the adverse employment action occurred close enough in time to the protected activity to constitute retaliation.