🗞️ NLRB Judge Dismisses Retaliation Claim Against Ohio Medical Clinic

Kaelar Spires filed charges on October 11, 2022, alleging that Reynolds Clinic, a Toledo addiction treatment center, unlawfully terminated her employment on August 5, 2022, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The General Counsel issued a complaint on March 14, 2025, and a trial was held September 3, 2025, in Cleveland.

Spires worked as a receptionist and medical assistant at the clinic from January 2021 until her termination. Dr. Munir Ahmad, the clinic's sole owner, fired her following complaints from another employee, Stacy F, about alleged workplace bullying.

The Protected Activity

In May or June 2022—two to three months before her termination—Spires participated in drafting and signing a group letter to Dr. Ahmad complaining about treatment by another physician, Dr. Mohammed Adas. Four employees signed the letter, which stated:

"We as a team are coming to you because we have some concerns with how we are treated at work, and how we are feeling... things with Dr. Adas has to change."

ALJ Arthur J. Amchan found this collective letter constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act, which gives employees the right to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

Reasons for Termination

According to the clinic's various statements, Dr. Ahmad fired Spires based on multiple factors:

• Immediate catalyst: Comments Spires made to employee Stacy F on August 5, which Dr. Ahmad described as "the straw that broke the camel's back"
• Pattern of complaints: The clinic cited a history of patient and staff complaints
• Contentious relationship: Friction with Dr. Adas, including a prior incident where Spires allegedly threatened to sue him

In his October 2022 statement to the NLRB, Dr. Ahmad said Spires was "terminated for a comment made to another staff member, along with a history of complaints made by our patients and being contentious with one of our doctors."

The Legal Standard

Under the Wright Line test (251 NLRB 1083), the General Counsel must first prove that protected activity was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action by showing:

1. Protected activity occurred
2. The employer knew about it
3. Animus existed against the activity

If proven, the burden shifts to the employer to show the same action would have occurred absent the protected conduct.

Judge's Analysis

ALJ Amchan found the General Counsel failed to meet the initial burden under Wright Line. Key factors in his analysis:

Insufficient Connection: While acknowledging Spires engaged in protected activity by signing the group letter, the judge found inadequate evidence linking that activity to her discharge.

No Animus Evidence: "There is no evidence that Dr. Ahmad bore animus towards the signatories of the letter," the decision states. Dr. Ahmad didn't mention the letter or Spires' relationship with Dr. Adas when terminating her.

Temporal Gap: The letter was written and delivered 2-3 months before the termination—a significant time lapse that weakened any causal connection.

No Pattern of Retaliation: None of the other four employees who signed the letter suffered adverse employment actions.

Doctor's Suggestion: Notably, Dr. Ahmad himself had suggested the employees write the letter, undermining any inference of retaliation.

Broader Conflict: The friction between Spires and Dr. Adas extended beyond the May/June letter, including an April 2022 confrontation where Spires allegedly threatened to sue Dr. Adas. The judge found no evidence this ongoing conflict was related to group concerns or other employees' issues.

Individual vs. Concerted Activity

The decision notes that Spires' comments to Stacy F on August 5—the immediate cause of termination—were "neither protected nor concerted." The judge cited Mike Yurosek & Son, Inc. (306 NLRB 1037) for the principle that individual action can be concerted if it's a "logical outgrowth" of group concerns, but found no such connection here.

"There is no evidence that any of this interaction was related to the concerns of other employees," ALJ Amchan wrote. "There is no evidence that the concerns of any other employees about Dr. Adas were brought to Respondent's attention after the May/June letter."

Conclusion

While acknowledging that Dr. Ahmad admitted Spires' relationship with Dr. Adas was a factor in her discharge, the judge concluded: "The friction between Spires and Dr. Adas involved much more than the May/June letters. There is insufficient evidence to tie her discharge to those letters, which constituted the only protected conduct in which she engaged."

The complaint was dismissed, with the judge finding Reynolds Clinic did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Significance

This decision illustrates the challenges employees face in proving retaliation claims when:

• Significant time passes between protected activity and adverse action
• Multiple legitimate performance issues exist
• The employer can demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons for termination
• No pattern of retaliation against other participants exists

Case Number: 08-CA-305148
Parties: General Counsel represented by Judd E. Cohen; Respondent by Robert J. Bahret (Rohrbacher Trimble & Zimmerman); Charging Party by Kera L. Paoff (Paoff & Robinson)

Note: This decision may be appealed to the full National Labor Relations Board. If no exceptions are filed, the findings and dismissal become final.