Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E. D. Ky.: Employer granted summary judgment after terminating Black employee who tested too high on blood alcohol test, (Dec 10, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

Leaning on Marathon’s blood alcohol content (BAC) policy, the court noted, “Both men had a BAC result above.000, but their test results varied significantly in terms of their consequences.”

Determining that evidence was lacking, and that although some elements were met, an employee could not make a prima facie case of discrimination, a federal district court in Kentucky granted summary judgment to an employer. The employee, an African-American, had tested above the company’s limit for blood alcohol content (BAC) before boarding a vessel and was sent home and subsequently fired. However, a white employee also tested above the BAC limit, although at a lower level, and was allowed to return to work after some days and subsequent testing. The employee sued, claiming racial discrimination since he was fired and not the other employee. The court disagreed with the employee, citing the company’s policy based on levels of BAC, situations where other employees were similarly fired, and finding that it was not shown that a similarly situated individual outside the protected class was treated more favorably (Easley v. Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services LLC, No. 24-52-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky. Dec. 8, 2025)).

Drug testing. The employee worked as a deckhand and mate aboard two different ships operated by the employer for over four years, advancing through several promotions to the position of Mate 2. His duties included supervising deckhands and ensuring safety aboard company vessels, a role where adherence to safety protocols was critical. In 2023, the employee, who is described as an African American man, reported for a scheduled 28-day assignment aboard a ship. Before departure, the entire crew was randomly selected for drug and alcohol screening under the employer’s Drug and Alcohol Policy.

The employee’s initial breath test registered a BAC of.064, and a confirmation test showed.059, well above the policy’s.040 threshold for “Prohibited Blood Alcohol Content,” which mandates termination. Another crew member, however, who is white, tested at.022 and.019 BAC, triggering a lesser consequence under the same policy: removal for the day and return upon a zero BAC reading.

Lawsuit. Following verification of the employee’s results, the employer suspended him pending review and later terminated his employment. He filed suit asserting race-based discrimination and retaliation claims under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the KCRA, a plaintiff must show that (1) they were a member of a protected class; (2) they suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that they were qualified for the position; and (4) that a person outside the protected class was treated more favorably than him.

The case was removed to federal court, where the retaliation claim was abandoned, leaving only the discrimination claim. The employee argued that the white employee’s return to work demonstrated disparate treatment, as both men were similarly situated except for race.

Prima facie case. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that the employee could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. While he satisfied the first two elements, membership in a protected class and adverse employment action, the court concluded he failed to show that the white employee was treated more favorably under comparable circumstances.

The court noted that the employer’s policy prescribed different consequences based on BAC levels, and both employees were disciplined in accordance with those provisions. The court further noted that termination for violating an alcohol policy constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge. Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the employee did not present adequate evidence of discriminatory intent or unequal application of company policy.

The case is No. 24-52-DLB-EBA.

Attorneys: Paul Stewart Abney (Abney Law Office) for Eric Easley. J. Andrew Inman (Littler Mendelson) for Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services LLC.

Companies: Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims KentuckyNews