Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Tex.: Former GM of automotive dealership fails to show bias motivated termination, (Jan 23, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

The former manager had no facts to sustain racial discrimination or breach of contract claims.

A federal district court in Texas granted an automotive dealership owner’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a former general manager who alleged he was terminated because of his race. The former manager raised race discrimination, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court accepted the dealership fired the manager for poor performance and the manager could not show this was a pretext for racial discrimination. A paucity of evidence doomed the manager’s breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation theories, as nothing in the record supported his contention the dealerships wrongfully inflated expenses to reduce his income (May v. Gilchrist Automotive Group, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01070-P (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case was the general manager of three car dealerships in Lawton, Oklahoma from 2022 to 2024. He signed a pay plan when he was hired, was provided a monthly salary, a monthly commission tied to net profit, and an option to purchase up to a 20 percent ownership interest in each dealership.

Termination. Ultimately, the group that owned and operated the dealerships became dissatisfied with the manager’s performance, stating he did not follow normal business hours and routinely left during the workday without notice. He also allegedly mismanaged the dealership and failed to enforce company policies for reviewing expenses and investigating sexual harassment reports. The group fired the manager in February 2024.

Subsequently, the former employee filed this lawsuit contending that he was: (1) hired and fired because of his race; and (2) the group that owned the dealership “manipulated expenses” to “[reduce] the compensation owed to him under the pay plan.” His claims encompassed allegations of race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of contract, and, in the alternative to breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation.

Race discrimination. The former manager’s race discrimination claims failed because he proffered no facts disputing the dealership owner’s nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment.

According to the former manager, the group that owns the dealerships terminated his employment because of his race. The group responded with evidence of his attendance issues and mishandling of company policies, which the court accepted as “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason[s] for termination.” The former manager did not meet his burden to show these reasons were a mere pretext. He offered evidence suggesting he was hired because of his race as part of a DEI initiative, but the court rejected this as immaterial to whether the reasons for his dismissal were a pretext. Because the manager provided “no competent…evidence tying his termination to race” he did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact necessary to survive summary judgment.

Breach of contract. As to the claims for breach of contract or fraudulent misrepresentation, the former manager did not introduce enough evidence to assert a breach of contract. He contended the pay plan tied to his monthly profit and annual bonus constituted breach of contract because the group that owned the dealership “falsely inflated expenses” to reduce his net income. To support this theory, he relied on the group owner’s testimony about “packs,” which were not included in dealerships’ gross profits. However, the court found no connection between the packs and falsely inflated expenses. The court concluded this paucity of factual information was not enough to prove the manager’s breach of contract theory, nor meet the “low bar” for summary judgment.

The former manager’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim also failed because it rested on the same “inflated expenses theory” the court rejected above.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-01070-P.

Judge: Pittman, M.

Attorneys: Nicholas Parks (The Parks Law Firm) for Roosevelt May. Kirstie Morgan Simmerman (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for Gilchrist Automotive Group, LLC, SouthWest Buick GMC, LLC and SouthWest HMS, LLC.

Companies: Gilchrist Automotive Group, LLC; SouthWest Buick GMC, LLC; SouthWest HMS, LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination ContractClaims Discharge TortClaims TexasNews