Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—5th Cir.: Coworker’s offensive posts not sufficient support for mechanic’s hostile environment claim, (Nov 19, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

Although the social media posts encouraged violence against social justice protestors, they fell far short of the extreme court necessary to be actionable discriminatory workplace harassment.

A Black mechanic who was fired by his car dealership employer after he missed more than two weeks of work failed to show social media posts by his coworker encouraging violence against protestors, which appeared on the same day the mechanic attended a social justice protest, created an actionable hostile work environment, the Fifth Circuit ruled in an unpublished opinion. Nor was he able to show his termination was motivated by discriminatory intent, said the appeals court, affirming summary judgment against his Title VII wrongful discharge claim as well. The court also upheld sanctions of $3,500 against the employee’s counsel (Webber v. Leson Chevrolet Co., No. 24-30637 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 2025, unpublished)).

Protest and posts. The mechanic, who worked for the family-owned dealership since September 2019, attended a social justice protest in June 2020 at the sheriff’s office, which was located next to the dealership. The following day, he learned that his coworker, a trainee manager in the sales department and the son of the dealership operator, had circulated offensive social media posts that encouraged violence against protestors.

The mechanic told his supervisor and another manager that he feared his coworker might harm him because he had attended the protest. When he asked to talk to other dealership management, the manager suggested that he instead talk to his coworker. The mechanic refused unless he was assured the coworker would not have a gun. In response, he claimed the manager told him “You are not about to do this, or this will be your last day working here.” The employee and his coworker never met.

Backlash. As a result of public backlash from the coworker’s posts, his mother fired him and apologized on behalf of the dealership. Five days after the posts first appeared, she met with dealership employees to address the controversy and allow them to express their concerns. Because he missed work that day, the mechanic did not attend the meeting. He did, however, ask his supervisor for time off due to safety concerns, which the supervisor granted.

Terminated. When the mechanic was still absent a week later, his supervisor contacted him and asked him when he planned to return. After the mechanic was assured by the dealership operator that her son no longer worked there, he returned to work. A little more than a week later, the mechanic saw his former coworker returning a dealership car that had been assigned to him. With his supervisor’s permission, he took the rest of the day off. When he failed to return to work after more than two weeks, he was fired.

Lower court proceedings. He subsequently sued and the district court granted summary judgment to the dealership on his Title VII race-based claims. The court also imposed sanctions of $3,500 on his counsel for a series of discovery lapses.

Hostile work environment. In support of his hostile work environment claim, the mechanic pointed to his coworker’s privileged status as the son of the dealership’s operator. While the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the coworker’s posts were abhorrent and involved threats of physical violence, the mechanic admitted his coworker did not know he had been involved in the protest at the time and the posts did not implicate or target him. Nor did the mechanic allege any negative in-person interactions with the coworker or even that they worked together.

The court also rejected the mechanic’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 Okonowsky v. Garland decision, which involved a plaintiff who was subjected by a close coworker to months of sexually violent social media posts that directly implicated her. Here, in contrast, the mechanic alleged a single series of offensive posts that did not identify him and that were posted by a coworker with whom he never interacted.

As to the mechanic’s assertion the manager amplified the coworker’s racist behavior by threatening termination, even assuming the threat was genuine, a threat of termination alone does not create a hostile work environment, said the court, and there were no allegations the mechanic was discouraged from pursuing his complaints with management. Accordingly, the court found summary judgment as to this claim appropriate.

Wrongful discharge. Turning to the mechanic’s claim he was fired because of his complaints about the coworker’s posts, the court first rejected his contention the proximity in time between his complaint and firing constituted direct evidence. Observing that he was fired after missing more than two weeks of work without explanation, the court noted that the timing of his discharge would at best raise only an inference of discriminatory animus.

Under the burden-shifting framework, the court found that even if the mechanic made out a prima facie case, the dealership proffered a legitimate reason for firing him—his more than two-week absence from work without explanation—and he failed to show this was pretextual. Though he pointed to the fact he was not granted an individual meeting with managers to discuss his safety concerns, management did have a meeting with employees, but the mechanic was absent that day. Further, he was allowed to take time off, he had a personal call with the dealership’s operator, and his coworker was promptly terminated.

Nor was the court persuaded by his assertion that the dealership offered inconsistent explanations for the coworker’s termination when it first claimed to the EEOC that he was fired for violating employee conduct rules and then later told the state workforce commission that his termination was a result of a “reduction of workforce.” These shifting explanations, however, concerned the coworker’s termination, not the mechanic’s, the court observed. And even if the reasons for the coworker’s termination were relevant, any inconsistency between the dealership’s one-line “reduction of workforce” explanation on the agency form and its more detailed explanation in the EEOC proceeding fell “well short of the glaring discrepancies” the court has recognized as evidence of pretext.

Regarding the mechanic’s contention the coworker was inadequately disciplined because he was rehired months later, this was not supported by the record. But even if he had been placed on leave and then rehired, the dealership only needed to end the harassment. Moreover, said the court, “differential treatment of two employees who were not similarly situated does not indicate that the decision to fire [the mechanic] was pretextual.” Thus, the court also affirmed summary judgment against this claim.

Sanctions. Addressing finally the mechanic’s assertion that any misconduct by his counsel was unintended and that the $3,500 sanction was needlessly punitive, the court noted that in support, he argued only that any mistakes were made in good faith and claimed the magistrate treated his counsel more harshly than the dealership’s counsel. The court, however, pointed out that his counsel missed at least three court appearances and the mechanic’s various motions relitigated issues that had already been decided or declared moot. Based on this conduct, the court found the determination that sanctions were merited was not an abuse of discretion.

Nor was $3,500 excessive as the magistrate judge made clear that the sanctions reflected a lengthy series of missed appearances, baseless accusations against defense counsel, and the burden on both the court and the dealership of handling continued frivolous filings.

The case is No. 24-30637.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Jaymeski Pullins-Gorham (Law Offices of Jaymeski Pullins-Gorham) for Nathanial Webber. Mark Raymond Beebe (Adams & Reese) for Leson Chevrolet Company.

Companies: Leson Chevrolet Company

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge RemediesDamages LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews