Oneka Spicer v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.

── Oneka Spicer v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0197n.06 Case No. 25-1667 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 01, 2026 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ONEKA SPICER, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN HARVARD MAINTENANCE, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN INCORPORATED, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION ) Before: READLER, DAVIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Oneka Spicer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her former employer, Harvard Maintenance, Inc., on her race discrimination, sex discrimination, and hostile-work-environment claims brought under Michigan law. She also appeals the court’s denial of her motion to reconsider its summary judgment order. Because Spicer has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to any of her claims, we AFFIRM. I. A. Factual Background Oneka Spicer worked as a cleaner for Harvard Maintenance, Inc. (“Harvard”), a janitorial service company, at a multi-building complex in Michigan between 2017 and 2018. Spicer, who is a woman of African American descent, worked in two buildings during her tenure at Harvard. Initially, she reported to site supervisor Melissa Irving. When a position No. 25-1667, Spicer v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc. became available at a different building about six months later, Spicer transferred there. The second building was managed by site supervisor Chris Copeland, who is African American. According to Spicer, she asked Irving for the transfer because a tenant in the first building cursed at her and called her a racial slur. According to Harvard, the transfer was voluntary. Contemporaneous documents do not reflect the reason for the transfer. During Spicer’s time at Harvard, several commercial tenants in both buildings complained about her work. And Harvard issued multiple warnings advising her of these complaints. For instance, in October 2017, Spicer received a written reprimand explaining her “substandard” cleaning work. (Disciplinary Form, R. 59-5, PageID 1700). In July 2018, after Spicer transferred buildings, Harvard put her on a “strict cleaning schedule” designed to ensure that she thoroughly cleaned each area to which she was assigned and to “giv[e] [her] [a] chance[] to complete the job duties” correctly. (Id. at PageID 1701; Graham-Coltrane Dep., R. 59-1, PageID 1610). The following month, Spicer received another written reprimand for not following the cleaning schedule. When asked about these complaints during her deposition, Spicer did not recall receiving any complaints about the quality of her work and claimed to have never seen the written reprimands. Spicer received a final reprimand in October 2018 after Copeland saw her sitting in a client’s chair and charging her phone during a non-break period in her shift. He summoned Spicer to his office. Spicer says that she immediately went to Copeland’s office; Harvard, however, maintains that Spicer disobeyed Copeland’s directiv