Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Mich.: Honest belief defeats race bias claims of truck driver fired for punching coworker, (Aug 6, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

An African-American truck driver identified a similarly situated white coworker who was treated differently but failed to show his employer’s stated reason for firing him masked race discrimination.

Doan Construction Company and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 247 defeated a former truck driver’s race discrimination and labor claims after a federal court concluded that Doan honestly believed the employee violated its workplace violence policy by punching a coworker. Although the employee established a prima facie case of race discrimination by identifying a similarly situated white coworker who was not fired, he failed to produce evidence that Doan’s stated reason for the discharge was a pretext for unlawful bias. The court also found no evidence that the union discriminated against him, retaliated against him, or breached its duty of fair representation by declining to arbitrate his grievance (Kelly v. Doan Construction Co., No. 2:24-cv-13169 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2026)).

The employee, an African-American truck driver, worked for Doan for five years and had belonged to Teamsters Local 247 for 27 years. After Doan terminated his employment in July 2024, he pursued a contractual grievance challenging the discharge. When the union business agent declined to take the grievance to arbitration and the union’s executive board unanimously upheld that decision, the employee sued Doan and Local 247.

He asserted federal and state race discrimination claims, a retaliation claim against the union, a claim that the union failed to timely provide the applicable collective bargaining agreement, and a hybrid LMRA claim alleging both a breach of the CBA and a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation.

Workplace altercation. While pouring concrete at a Doan construction site, the employee was repeatedly insulted by a coworker, prompting him to leave his truck and confront him. The employee later maintained that the coworker attempted to punch him and struck his outstretched hand, after which he punched the coworker in the face. A second confrontation with the coworker’s father ended without violence after a foreman intervened.

Doan suspended the employee and later discharged him for violating its workplace violence policy. During the grievance process, however, he did not tell company officials that the coworker had attempted to strike him. He repeatedly stated that he punched the coworker because he had called him a “dumbass.” The only eyewitness did not report seeing the coworker throw a punch. Based on the information available at the time, Doan denied the grievance.

The union business agent also declined to arbitrate, concluding that the union could not establish the employee was not the aggressor. After the employee’s attorney accused the union of racial discrimination and requested a copy of the CBA, the employee appealed that decision to the union’s executive board. The board unanimously affirmed the decision not to arbitrate, noting that race was never discussed during the meeting or during its deliberations.

Discrimination claims. The court concluded that the employee established a prima facie case of race discrimination against Doan. It rejected the company’s argument that he was unqualified for his position because he admitted punching a coworker, explaining that an employee’s qualifications must be evaluated independently of the employer’s asserted reason for the discharge. The court also determined that, viewing the evidence in the employee’s favor, the white coworker qualified as a similarly situated comparator because both men allegedly engaged in comparable physical conduct, yet only the employee lost his job.

However, that initial showing was not enough to survive summary judgment. Doan articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge: The employee violated its workplace violence policy by punching a coworker. Applying the Sixth Circuit’s honest belief doctrine, the court found that Doan reasonably relied on the facts known at the time of its decision. The employee admitted punching the coworker, repeatedly failed to report that the coworker had attempted to strike him, and no eyewitness corroborated that later account. Even if Doan ultimately proved mistaken, the relevant question was whether it honestly believed its stated reason for the termination. Because the employee produced no evidence that Doan’s explanation masked racial discrimination, his claims against the company failed.

The claims against Local 247 fared no better. The employee argued that the union’s refusal to arbitrate effectively ratified Doan’s alleged discrimination, but he identified no direct evidence that race motivated the union’s decision. He relied on the same disparate treatment evidence asserted against Doan, which required inference and did not constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the union on the race discrimination claims.

Collective bargaining agreement. The employee also alleged that Local 247 retaliated against him by waiting approximately six months to provide a copy of the CBA after his attorney requested it. The court found no evidence establishing a causal connection between the request and the delay. According to the union, the request letter was discovered only after the unexpected death of the union business agent, and the employee produced no evidence that the delay was retaliatory. Therefore, his retaliation claim failed.

The court next addressed the employee’s claim that Local 247 failed to provide a copy of the CBA as required by federal law. Although the court concluded that union members may bring a private action to enforce that requirement, it held that the employee failed to establish a concrete injury. The executive board considered only whether the grievance should proceed to arbitration, and the court concluded that receiving the agreement earlier would not have affected that determination. Moreover, although the employee’s attorney had already raised potential race discrimination claims before the hearing, the employee never presented that argument to the executive board. The board instead considered only whether the grievance should proceed to arbitration.

Fair representation. The employee’s hybrid claim also failed because it required proof that both Doan breached the CBA and Local 247 breached its duty of fair representation. Relying on its earlier discrimination analysis, the court concluded that the employee failed to establish Doan violated the agreement. Similarly, the court determined that the union’s decision not to arbitrate fell well within the broad discretion afforded unions in handling grievances.

Although the employee argued that the union reached the wrong conclusion about who initiated the altercation, the court explained that an incorrect decision is not necessarily arbitrary. The employee also failed to produce evidence of fraud, deceit, or dishonest conduct sufficient to establish bad faith.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-13169.

Judge: Murphy, S., III

Attorneys: Collin H. Nyeholt (Law Offices of Casey D. Conklin) for Christopher Kelly. Matthew E. Krichbaum (Soble Rowe Krichbaum) for Doan Construction Co. Kyle A. McCoy (Law Offices of Kyle A. McCoy) for International Brotherhood of Teamsters - Local 247.

Companies: Doan Construction Company; International Brotherhood of Teamsters - Local 247

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation UnionsMembers MichiganNews