Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Pa.: Comparator question sufficient to advance racial bias claim, (Jul 29, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The only credible argument an African-American food manufacturing employee had as to pretext was that her white coworkers, who may or may not be considered comparators, were not terminated following a safety incident.

Denying Campbell’s Soup Company’s motion for summary judgment against the federal and state-law claims for racial discrimination brought by food manufacturing plant employee, a federal district court in Pennsylvania determined that there was a question of material fact as to her coworkers’ culpability for lock-out tag-out (LOTO) procedure violations. The employee was fired for allegedly committing such a violation while assisting her coworkers with a malfunctioning machine. Her coworkers retained their employment (Velez-Santiago v. Campbell’s Soup Co., No. 24-6383 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2026)).

The employee in this case is an African-American woman who began working at a Pepperidge Farm commercial bakery in 2017. In the beginning, she worked in the packaging department and was trained on six packaging lines, which included training on LOTO procedures.

Machine operator. In March 2021, the employee was awarded the position of machine operator/depositor for Line 1 in the plant’s processing area. She was also trained on Line 2, but her requests to be trained on all processing lines were denied. The Line 1 machine she worked on was control reliable, meaning certain maintenance tasks could be performed on the machine without applying LOTO procedures.

LOTO training. It was undisputed that on October 6, 2020, the employee signed a document acknowledging her understanding of a “Lockout Safety Talk.” That document stated that employees were required to LOTO any time they place any part of their body in harm’s way and any time they are exposed to hazardous energy. It also described group LOTO rules wherein each employee is required to attach their own lock to a hasp before starting work. Similar documents were signed by the employee on May 6, 2022, and again on June 29, 2023.

Machine breakdown. On July 17, 2023, a coworker working on Line 4 radioed for assistance with a broken wire. The employee went to help and when she got there, she discovered another coworker inserting a long tool called a scraper into the machine. That coworker did not LOTO before using the scraper. The Line 4 operator had locked one of the two line switches before the employee’s arrival.

Assuming the machine was control reliable, the employee did not apply her lock and proceeded to stick her arm in the machine to help repair the broken wire. The incident was caught on camera and was only discovered after a safety coordinator was investigating a separate incident.

Termination. An employee relations manager led the investigation of the incident. She concluded the employee had violated LOTO policy and placed her on suspension. A committee then reviewed the investigation’s findings and recommended that the employee be terminated, which she was.

At the time of her termination, the employee expressed concern that she was being terminated for helping another employee on a machine on which she was not trained, and that the other employees involved in the incident also did not follow LOTO policy but were not disciplined. The employer had concluded that the two coworkers, both of whom are white, did not violate LOTO policy during the incident.

Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit, asserting racial discrimination claims in violation of Title VII, Section1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The employer moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Failure to train. All three of the employee’s claims were analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework. It was undisputed that the employee was a member of a protected class and was qualified for the position. The parties diverged on whether the denial of her request to train on Line 4 constituted an adverse employment action.

On this point, the court found the employer had the better argument in its contention that denial of training on Line 4 did not constitute an adverse employment action where, as here, the employee was trained on LOTO procedure, which applied to all energized machines on the production floor. The employer submitted that there was no evidence that had the employee been trained on Line 4, she would not have committed the LOTO violation leading to her termination, defeating the requisite nexus between the denial of training and her termination.

Further, the court noted that the employee presented no evidence to show that had she been trained on Line 4, she would have been promoted, reassigned with different responsibilities, or had a significant change in benefits. Accordingly, it could not be said that any denial of training on Line 4 constituted an adverse employment action.

Even if it were an adverse employment action, continued the court, there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether that denial occurred for discriminatory reasons. Her coworkers were specifically assigned to operate Lines 2 through 6. The employee did not present evidence that she was ever assigned to Line 4 or that her job requirements necessitated as such, making her distinguishable from her coworkers. The fact that the coworkers were trained on Line 4 was a function of their job responsibilities, explained the court, and did not give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Suspension and termination. As to the suspension and termination of the employee, the parties only disputed whether those actions arose under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. As an initial matter, the employee argued that she and her coworkers had the same supervisor and the incident was investigated by the same individuals, and thus they should be considered comparators. The court explained that more was needed and looked at the specific circumstances giving rise to the adverse actions—and the lack of actions taken towards the coworkers—to determine whether they were similarly situated.

Coworkers. It was undisputed that the coworker who was assisting the Line 4 operator by using a scraper to reach into the machine did not LOTO Line 4. The key factor, observed the court, was whether he committed a LOTO violation by reaching into the machine with a scraper tool. If so, he could be considered a comparator who received more favorable treatment than the employee. According to the employer, LOTO is not required when using a tool to enter a machine, as opposed to a body part.

In response, the employee testified that in the training she received, LOTO was required before employees were to reach into any machine, including with a tool. She failed to point to any documentation asserting such a rule. Nonetheless, the court found this testimony sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to LOTO policy.

With regard to the Line 4 operator, it was undisputed that she applied a lock to one of the two switches on the machine. The dispute was whether she was required to lock out both switches. Neither party presented sufficient evidence for the court to determine at this point whether the Line 4 operator’s conduct—locking out only the left switch, which was the side of the machine malfunction—constituted a LOTO violation. Thus, there was also a genuine dispute of material fact on this question.

Nondiscriminatory reason. Even if the employee were to present a prima facie case for race discrimination, the employer proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination decision—violation of its LOTO policy.

Pretext. Shifting the burden back to the employee to show evidence of pretext, the court again noted that there was a question of fact as to whether the coworkers violated the LOTO policy. If the finder of fact concludes that they did in fact commit LOTO violations, then a reasonable fact finder might similarly find that the employer’s decision to terminate the employee because of her similar LOTO violation was pretext for a discriminatory motive.

The court went on to reject the employee’s argument that the investigation was flawed in that it should have found mitigating circumstances that should have resulted only in a suspension, explaining that a disagreement with an employer’s evaluation does not evince pretext. It also rejected the employee’s cat’s paw theory, finding no evidence the decisionmaker harbored racial animus toward the employee.

At this point, concluded the court, the employee’s only credible argument as to pretext was that her coworkers, who may or may not be properly considered comparators, were not terminated following the LOTO incident. Because there was a question of fact as to their culpability for LOTO violations, summary judgment was inappropriate and the employer’s motion was denied.

The case is No. 24-6383.

Judge: Henry, C.

Attorneys: Olugbenga O. Abiona (Abiona Law) for Stella Velez-Santiago. Alison C. Morris (Duane Morris) for Campbell's Soup Co., Pepperidge Farm Inc. and Sherrie Cook.

Companies: Campbell's Soup Co.; Pepperidge Farm Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Safety PennsylvaniaNews