Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—8th Cir.: Two former Black workers at steel plant fail to revive lawsuit alleging bias, harassment, and retaliation, (Sep 10, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The alleged harassment included a supervisor’s “slave driver” remark to one of the employees, but after he complained, the company investigated and fired the supervisor within eight days.

Two former Black employees at a steel plant—one who was fired after he violated a last chance agreement due to threatening behavior at a meeting with management, and the other who eventually resigned after receiving a warning for tardiness the day after he complained about a supervisor’s racist remark—failed to convince the Eighth Circuit to reinstate their claims of race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Affirming summary judgment against them, the appeals court held that the terminated employee failed to present evidence from which an inference of bias or retaliation could be made, the other employee’s warning did not constitute an adverse employment action, and neither were subjected to sufficiently severe nor pervasive conduct so as to create an actionable hostile work environment (Warren v. Nucor Corp., No. 24-1132 (8th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025)).

Combative interview. The terminated employee worked at the plant since 1994, but the events that led to his firing began on July 9, 2021, when management interviewed him regarding a white coworker’s allegation that he had used the N-word. When he asked if he knew why he was being interviewed., he replied, “If I’m over here, it’s always some BS.” Upon being informed of the coworker’s allegation, he became irate and aggressive, denied using a racial slur, and stated that he was “madder than a mother f*ucker” and “one pissed off mother f*ucker.” He also stated, “I can’t keep my sh*t together” and “need to cool the f*ck down,” and threatened that management had “better hope” he didn’t see the accuser. Afterwards, he was suspended with pay pending an investigation.

Last chance agreement. The investigation failed to confirm that he had used a racial slur, and he was allowed to return to work. However, based on his conduct during the interview, management advised him on July 21 that he needed to attend anger management classes and was being placed on a last chance agreement (LCA) that stated he would be terminated if he failed to comply with company policies again. He filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination a month later.

Terminated. Several months later, in February 2022, he got into an argument with his supervisor about his failure to perform certain job duties. He swore repeatedly and informed the supervisor, among other things, that he had “stayed to help my f*cking coworker out” and that “next time I will take my ass home.” He was fired three days later, ostensibly due to poor work performance, insubordination, and aggressive and threatening behavior in violation of his LCA.

“Slave driver” remark. The other employee worked at the steel plant since 2018, and claimed that he was also subjected to race discrimination and harassment. For instance, he complained in 2020 that a supervisor disciplined him after he used the same procedures that his white coworkers always used to request a vacation day. After an investigation, the employer reassigned the supervisor. He filed an EEOC charge in January 2021 related to the incident.

In early April 2021, a different white supervisor remarked that he was the employee’s “slave driver” while pretending to crack a whip. The employee reported the incident on April 26, and after investigating the incident, the employer fired the supervisor on May 3. One day earlier, on May 2, the employee received a warning because for being tardy. On May 27, he filed a second EEOC charge alleging the warning was retaliatory. He eventually resigned in October 2022.

No inference of bias. The Eighth Circuit first determined that the terminated employee’s discrimination claim failed at the prima facie stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework since no inference of bias could be discerned from the evidence in the record. Notably, he did not contest the district court’s finding that he failed to point to any similarly situated white comparators who also violated a LCA but were treated more leniently. Instead, he argued that a discriminatory motive could be inferred from the employer’s failure to follow its own policies. The appeals court disagreed.

Though he argued that the company violated its policies by placing him on a LCA because of an old infraction, it was undisputed that he was placed on the LCA because of his misconduct during the interview with management. “During this meeting he demonstrated an utter lack of anger management, used extensive profanity, and threatened his coworker,” explained the court. Moreover, management’s investigation of an off-site racial slur did not suggest pretext as even the employee admitted that the company should have investigated the allegation.

No inference of retaliation. The terminated employee’s retaliation claim also failed since he could not show that either his placement on the LCA or his firing were related to his September 2021 EEOC charge or his complaint of race discrimination at the July 21 meeting. Significantly, he was placed on the LCA before either instance of protected activity. Moreover, he was fired nearly seven months after the meeting and over five months after the EEOC complaint—too long of a time span to infer causation. The Eighth Circuit also rejected his contention that the LCA was retaliation for having expressed his general indignation during the July 9 interview, emphasizing that, “[d]isciplining an employee because he threatened coworkers and used offensive language is not ‘retaliation.’”

Warning not adverse action. The employe who was given a tardiness warning after he complained about his supervisor’s “slave driver” remark also failed to revive his retaliation claim. The Eighth Circuit held that he was not subjected to a materially adverse employment action since the warning did nothing more than provide notice that if he continued to arrive late, he could be fired.

Harassment not severe or pervasive. Finally, the district court did not err in granting the employer summary judgment on both employees’ hostile work environment claims. The longtime employee alleged several isolated incidents that were not sufficiently severe. For instance, he described an unreported 20-year old racially derogatory remark that he heard secondhand, an email discussing racially offensive terms in 2010 that he circulated himself, and two racist social media posts by coworkers—one of which he never reported and the other of which resulted in the responsible employee’s immediate termination.

Though he also claimed he was subject to an unnecessary investigation based on the false claim of his racist coworker, there was no evidence suggesting the employer knew or should have known the accuser was motivated by racism. But even if it had, the employee did not suggest any alternative “manner” in which management should have responded. Upon learning of the racial slur allegation, it suspended him with pay while it investigated. Then, upon failing to confirm that he had used a racial slur, he was fully reinstated without discipline related to the accusation. Rather, the LCA related to his misconduct during the July 9 interview.

Similarly, the other employee alleged only a single incident of harassment by his supervisor, and the employer responded to this incident “swiftly and effectively.” Within eight days of his initial report, the employer had investigated and terminated the offending supervisor.

The case is No. 24-1132.

Judge: Gruender, R.

Attorneys: John V. Siskopoulos (Siskopoulos Law Firm) for Rod Warren and Eric Booker. M. Kimberly Hodges (Ogletree Deakins) for Nucor Corp.

Companies: Nucor Corp.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews