Richard Thistlethwaite v. Pace Air Freight Inc.

── Richard Thistlethwaite v. Pace Air Freight Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0239n.06 No. 25-5793 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 28, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) RICHARD THISTLETHWAITE, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PACE AIR FREIGHT, INC., ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION ) ) Before: McKEAGUE, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Richard Thistlethwaite worked at Pace Air Freight, Inc. from 1999 until he was terminated in 2021. He claims that Pace interfered with and retaliated against his use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The district court granted summary judgment to Pace, concluding that even had Thistlethwaite been able to establish a prima facie case for FMLA interference and retaliation, he could not show that Pace’s legitimate, non- retaliatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. We agree there is no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to pretext. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND Thistlethwaite began working for Pace, a trucking company that transports pharmaceuticals across the Midwest, in 1999. He started as a truck driver, but through a series of promotions, worked his way up to director of operations—the position he held when terminated in 2021. As relevant to this appeal, Thistlethwaite oversaw operations at Pace’s Cincinnati and Louisville terminals. No. 25-5793, Thistlethwaite v. Pace Air Freight, Inc. While at Pace, Thistlethwaite took medical leave on multiple occasions. During the first half of 2018, Thistlethwaite took four months of leave. At the end of 2018, and stretching through much of 2019, Thistlethwaite took additional leave for approximately eleven months. Thistlethwaite took another medical leave in February 2021, the period from which his claims in this case arise. He was on leave for approximately two months. A few days before Thistlethwaite was set to return to work, Pace terminated him. Pace provided two reasons for Thistlethwaite’s termination: (1) his failure to provide company management “access to the security camera video records” at the locations he oversaw and (2) his falsification of mileage reports for his trips between the Cincinnati and Louisville terminals. Termination Notice, R. 64-1, PageID 409. In response to being terminated while on leave, Thistlethwaite sued Pace for FMLA interference and retaliation. After the parties conducted discovery, Pace moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Pace, holding that Thistlethwaite could not show that Pace’s proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual. Thistlethwaite timely appealed. ANALYSIS We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274, 281 (6th Cir. 2012). At the summary judgment stage, the moving party—here, Pace—must show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P.