Robert Colyer, a Black man, sued his former employer, Leadec Corp., alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
Colyer, employed from 2017 to 2019, held various positions at Leadec, including janitorial and service attendant roles. He was an elected union representative, representing about 150 auto workers. Colyer filed several grievances accusing Leadec’s management of race discrimination and creating a hostile work environment based on national origin. He alleged that his subsequent job reassignment to more physically demanding tasks was retaliatory for filing “too many grievances.” Colyer also raised concerns about Leadec’s treatment of other employees, alleging differential treatment based on race.
After receiving complaints about Colyer, Leadec retained an external investigator, Ann Plunkett of Workforce Partners, to investigate complaints against Robert Colyer, bypassing internal processes to avoid the appearance of targeting union leadership. Plunkett’s investigation involved reviewing relevant documents, interviewing multiple witnesses including Colyer, and analyzing written statements from employees. Her findings concluded that Colyer engaged in actions violating company harassment and employee conduct policies. One day after receiving the report, Leadec terminated Colyer’s employment.
Court’s Rulings and Legal Issues Addressed
Race Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: The court examined Colyer’s claims under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, finding that the analysis for each claim was identical. Colyer could survive summary judgment either by presenting direct evidence of discrimination or by creating an inference of unlawful discrimination through the McDonnell Douglas analysis, including sufficient evidence of pretext.
Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Intent: The court found that Colyer’s evidence was either inadmissible, immaterial, or insufficient to show a specific link between discriminatory bias and adverse employment actions. The decision-makers in Colyer’s termination were not shown to be motivated by racial bias.
McDonnell Douglas Analysis and Pretext: The court assumed that Colyer presented a prima facie case but turned to the question of whether Leadec’s nondiscriminatory reason for his termination was pretext for discrimination. Under the “honest belief rule,” the court found that Leadec honestly believed Colyer had violated company rules, dismissing the pretext argument. Colyer failed to show that the investigation into his conduct was a sham or unsupported by facts.
Investigation and Similarly Situated Employees: Colyer’s argument that the investigation was flawed and biased was rejected. The court found the investigation supported by extensive witness interviews and document reviews. Colyer’s comparison with other employees was not considered valid, as they were not shown to be proper comparators in similar positions, reporting to the same supervisor, or engaged in comparable conduct.
The court granted summary judgment to Leadec, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Leadec’s proffered explanation for Colyer’s termination was pretext for race discrimination. The same conclusion applied to his retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court denied the motion to strike the declarations of two former Leadec employees, but these were not deemed relevant to the court’s analysis.
Schrag on Law 