Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D. Ala.: Evidence of differential treatment supports white aerospace employee’s race bias claims, (Sep 28, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee cited several pieces of evidence he argued showed his employer created an environment where white employees were treated less favorably than minority employees.

A white senior team lead for an aviation and defense technology company presented sufficient evidence to suggest a pattern of differential treatment between white and Black employees—including that he was given fewer opportunities to improve his performance than a Black coworker who engaged in similar behavior—so as to survive summary judgment on his Title VII and Section 1981 race discrimination claims, a federal district court in Alabama rule. The court, however, granted summary judgment against his retaliation claim, finding he did not engage in protected activity when he complained about his subordinates’ racial discrimination against him (Lowell v. Rohr, Inc., No. 1:24-00357-JB-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2026)).

The employee began working at the company’s Foley, Alabama, facility as a painter in 2012, was promoted six years later to team lead, and then to senior team lead several years after that where he oversaw three team leads. In July 2023, two of the employee’s Black subordinates accused him of race discrimination. During the ensuing investigation, the employee moved one of the subordinates to a different position in the paint shop.

Written coaching. When the employee was informed by a senior manager and an associate director that his decision to transfer his subordinate could be perceived as retaliation, the employee expressed concern about his subordinates discriminating or retaliating against him. Although the investigation ultimately determined that the subordinates’ complaints could not be verified, the investigator uncovered additional complaints from others about the employee’s leadership. As a result, the senior manager issued a written coaching to the employee in December 2023.

Termination. In January 2024, the employee complained to the global ethics and compliance officer that the senior manager and associate director were targeting him. In April, the HR business partner met with several of the employee’s subordinates, both Black and white, who gave negative feedback about his leadership. Based on this, the senior manager decided to terminate the employee for a lack of improvement in his performance since his written coaching.

Race discrimination. Moving for summary judgment on the employee’s Title VII and Section 1981 claims, the company argued that he could not establish a prima facie case because he could not show similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably.

For his part, the employee pointed to a Black team lead whom he claimed had similar duties, was subject to the same code of conduct, and shared a relationship with the senior manager. He claimed the team lead engaged in similar conduct but was given more chances to improve and was ultimately transferred to a newly created DEI position instead of being fired. The company, however, argued that the employee was the team lead’s direct supervisor, they had had different job responsibilities, and the employee, as part of upper management, was held to different behavioral standards.

Here, the court found the evidence cited by the parties established that the employee was the team lead’s direct supervisor. While they may both have been team leads at one point, they held different job titles when they were disciplined. As to the employee’s assertion they had similar duties and were subject to the same code of conduct, that was limited to the time during which both were serving as team leads. Nor did the employee present any evidence to rebut the company’s assertion he was subject to heightened standards as an upper-level manager. Based on the overall evidence, the court found the team lead was not a proper comparator for purposes of the McDonnel Douglas analysis and the employee thus failed to establish a prima facie case.

Convincing mosaic. Shifting its attention to the convincing mosaic analysis, the court found the employee could not show the company’s proffered reasons for his discipline and eventual termination—his numerous leadership failures that did not improve despite his written coaching—were pretextual. These failures, the court observed, came to the company’s attention as a result of multiple complaints from his subordinates. While the employee argued that some of the complaints were unfounded, that did not show the company did not honestly believe his performance was deficient when it disciplined and then fired him based on the complaints.

Nor was the court persuaded by his assertion that the timing of his coaching—two months after the investigation of him ended—showed discriminatory motivation rather than a legitimate need to address the alleged behavior as he presented no evidence suggesting the “suspicious timing” of his coaching was a result of race discrimination. He also failed to show the timing of his termination was suspicious, said the court, again noting a lack of evidence connecting the termination decision with alleged racial animus.

Cat’s paw theory. In an attempt to raise a cat’s paw theory, the employee alleged the senior manager was merely “a conduit for the racially hostile motivations” of the associate director. But rather than presenting any evidence the associate director recommended that the senior manager fire him, the employee merely alleged the associate director “became extremely upset when [the employee] claimed to be experiencing different treatment from his black employees, because of his race” and the senior director consulted with the associate director on employee issues, including his termination. But neither assertion showed the associate director recommended that the senior manager terminate the employee, said the court, and there was significant evidence suggesting the senior manager was the sole decisionmaker in the employee’s termination.

Pattern of differential treatment. Finally, the employee argued that the company created an environment where white employees were treated less favorably than minority employees. In support, he alleged that his race discrimination complaint was not fully investigated while his subordinates’ complaints were. He also claimed that HR’s failure to mention that a Black employee threatened the family of white employee in the Black employee’s subsequent discipline was evidence “of HR diminishing alleged problematic behavior by a black employee in a situation where the person making the complaint was white.” Further, he claimed his discipline of a white subordinate went unquestioned by HR while it objected to his disciple of the two Black subordinates. The court also noted that comparing his discipline with that of the alleged comparator—the Black team lead—might be proper under the relaxed comparator standards that apply during the convincing mosaic analysis.

When viewed in a light most favorable to the employee, said the court, this could all suggest a pattern of differential treatment between white and Black employees. The employee seemed to have been given fewer opportunities to improve than the alleged comparator despite the two engaging in similar misconduct. When combined with the fact that the company did not object to the employee’s handling of the white subordinate’s discipline but objected to his handling of the two Black subordinates’ discipline, the court found this could indicate that it generally did not give white employees as many opportunities to improve as Black employees before suffering adverse employment actions.

Moreover, said the court, the employee’s allegations of discrimination against the Black subordinates did not appear to have been investigated as deeply as their allegations of discrimination against him. Denying summary judgment on his race discrimination claims, the court found a fact issue as to whether his termination was partly based on race.

Retaliation. Granting summary judgment as to his retaliation claim, however, the court found he did not engage in a protected activity as his belief he engaged in an unlawful employment practice when he complained about his subordinates’ discriminatory treatment of him was not objectively reasonable. “The plain language of Title VII,” the court explained, “suggests that it applies only to discrimination by an employer against an employee, not discrimination by subordinates against a supervisor, as is the case here.” And because the subordinates were not parties to the employee’s employment contract, they were not bound by Section 1981.

Nor were the employee’s complaints to multiple individuals that the senior manager was retaliating against him for his previous complaints about his subordinates protected activity as it was not objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was resisting an unlawful employment practice in the first place.

Finally, said the court, even if his complaints against the senior manager and associate director following his coaching were protected activity, the four-month gap between the two was insufficient to establish a causal connection.

The case is No. 1:24-00357-JB-N.

Judge: Beaverstock, J.

Attorneys: Rachel Lee McGinley (Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb) for Sean Lowell. Kimberly W. Geisler (Scott Dukes & Geisler) for Rohr, Inc. dba Collins Aerospace.

Companies: Rohr, Inc.; Collins Aerospace

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation AlabamaNews