Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—11th Cir.: Race, retaliation claims of Black laborers fired after refusing drug test revived, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“The mosaic of evidence in this case, enhanced by the reasonable inferences due a nonmovant, is convincing enough to put the question of intentional racial discrimination to a jury.”

Reversing summary judgment against the Title VII and Section 1981 race discrimination claims of two Black laborer-operators for a merchant wholesaler who were fired after they refused to submit to a drug test, the Eleventh Circuit cited evidence their white coworker who was also terminated after refusing to test was allowed to return to work the next day while the plaintiffs were not. And while all three had worked only four hours that day, the company paid the white coworker for a full shift while playing the employees for only four hours. The court also reversed summary judgment against their retaliation claims (Hall v. Coal Bed Services Inc., No. 24-10572 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2026)).

The employees began working for Coal Bed Services, a subsidiary of Pate Holdings, in September 2020 as laborer-operators for the metal and mineral merchant wholesaler. They claimed their supervisors gave them “dirtier” and more difficult jobs than their white coworkers and did not give them the same opportunities for development and advancement. One supervisor purportedly referred to them as “y’all” and “them” while referring to white employees by name and asked them to wash his truck during work hours even though it was not part of their job duties.

Verbal altercation. In January 2021, the employees had a verbal altercation with that supervisor after he allegedly belittled them by “talking crazy. Basically like, the boy stuff, like talking to us like we [were] beneath him.” When one of the employees confronted the supervisor, he purportedly said “I’ve got more black friends than y’all.”

Complaint. The employees complained to another supervisor, calling the supervisor with whom they had the altercation racist and stating that he was treating them differently than he treated others. Believing the incident was due to conflicting personalities, the supervisor to whom they complained took steps to separate them.

Drug test. About four weeks later, the supervisor to whom they had reported the altercation claimed that a worker told him he had seen the employees smoking marijuana on the job. The supervisor then rounded up all the workers and told them they had to take a drug test and if they refused, they would be fired. A white worker refused and walked off the jobsite. The plaintiffs also refused to take the test and also left the jobsite.

The employees denied that they had smoked marijuana on the job and there were no written reports to corroborate the supervisor’s claim as he did not document the reported drug use or their refusals to undergo drug testing.

Not rehired. A few hours after he had walked away, the white coworker contacted the supervisor about returning. Shortly after that, he was rehired on the condition he submit to a random drug test in the future. He returned to work the next day without having to pass a drug test. The employees also contacted the company about returning but were never rehired. In addition, the company paid the white coworker for a full shift on the day of the drug test while paying the employees for only four hours even though the coworker, like the employees, had only worked four hours.

Several weeks later, the company rehired a white laborer who had been fired eight months earlier for failing a drug test. The next laborer hired by the company was also white.

Lower court proceedings. The employees sued, asserting claims under Title VII and Section 1981 for race and discrimination and retaliation and the district court granted summary against all claims.

Title VII discrimination. Reversing summary judgment against the employees’ Title VII race discrimination claims, the Eleventh Circuit cited the convincing mosaic of evidence showing intentional race discrimination: the white coworker who lost his job the same day as the employees asked to be rehired and was given his job back the next work day while the employees were stonewalled in their repeated attempts to get their jobs back; all three men worked a half shift the day they lost their jobs but the company paid the coworker as though he had worked a full shift while paying the employees for only four hours of work; the company replaced the employees with two white laborers, one of whom had been fired less than a year earlier for failing a drug test; it told the EEOC that the drug test that led to the terminations was random but the supervisor later claimed in his deposition that the test had been administered because another worker reported that he had seen the employees smoking marijuana on the job; the company did not give the employees the same opportunities to improve their skills and advance that it gave white workers and it gave the employees the dirtiest jobs among the laborers; and one supervisor referred to the employees as “y’all” and “them,” while always referring to white workers by name and he once belittled them by calling them “boys” and telling them that he had “more black friends than” they did.

This, said the court, was convincing enough that a jury reasonably could find the company racially discriminated against the employees when it fired them and did not consider them for reemployment on the same terms as it did their white coworker. And while the company argued that the employees failed to show any actual evidence of racial motive, the convincing mosaic approach, the court explained, “requires a convincing mosaic of evidence, not a convincing mosaic including some direct evidence of race discrimination.”

Comparator evidence. Also rejected was the company’s assertion the court should not consider the more favorable treatment given the white coworker because, as the district court found, he was not a valid comparator as he had more construction experience, had been working for the company longer, and had a different title and different tasks than did the employees. But even assuming he was not a valid comparator for McDonnell Douglas purposes, that did not matter under the convincing mosaic analysis. Finding the strikingly different treatment of the white coworker highly significant, the court pointed out that he engaged in the same misconduct on the same day at the same time as the employees. Based on all this, said the court, a jury could find the employees were treated worse than their coworker based on their race.

Section 1981 race discrimination claim. The court further found that for the same reasons already discussed, the employees established a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on their Section 1981 claims that racial discrimination caused their loss of employment.

Title VII retaliation claim. As to the employees’ Title VII retaliation claim, the company argued that their race discrimination complaint was not objectively reasonable because it was unreasonable as a factual matter for them to think the supervisor with whom they had the altercation was discriminating against them. Noting evidence the supervisor referred to the employees as “y’all” and “them,” used a demeaning tone of voice when he asked them to wash his truck (which was not part of their job duties), belittled them and used the term “boy,” and told them “I’ve got more black friends than y’all,” the court found their complaint was objectively reasonable.

The court also rejected the company’s contention that despite the four weeks between their complaint and their terminations, the employees could not establish causation because their own misconduct broke the chain. The employees, however, repeatedly denied that they used drugs on the job and there was no written documentation to support the alleged report of their drug use even though the company had written documentation to support past reports of drug use involving other workers who had not participated in a protected activity.

Indeed, the court observed, the company told the EEOC that the drug test was “random,” not that it was administered in response to a report of drug use on the job. Moreover, when the white coworker also refused to be tested, the company did not treat that refusal as “misconduct” that barred him from being rehired immediately but instead granted his request to come back to work the next day.

“Whether summary judgment should have been granted on the Title VII retaliation claim comes down to this question,” said the court, “could a reasonable jury find that [the employees] were fired or weren’t rehired as retaliation for their complaint of racial discrimination.” Because a reasonable jury could answer that question either way, the court found summary judgment should not have been granted.

Section 1981 retaliation claim. Finding that the employees also established a material fact issue on their Section 1981 retaliation claim, the court reversed summary judgment on this claim as well.

The case is No. 24-10572.

Judge: Carnes, E.

Attorneys: Rachel Lee McGinley (Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb) for Demarkus Hall, Eddie Hughes, and Anne Guthrie. Jeffrey C. Smith (Jeffrey Smith Law) for Coal Bed Services Inc. and Pate Holdings Inc.

Companies: Coal Bed Services Inc.; Pate Holdings Inc.

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge AlabamaNews GeorgiaNews FloridaNews GCNNews