Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. Okla.: Project manager allegedly called ‘the lazy black guy’ by VP who allegedly fired him gets trial, (Mar 11, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The VP made the alleged racist remarks against the backdrop of his categorical denial of ever having discussed the employee’s performance prior to his firing—a denial clearly refuted by the evidence.

A jury will decide whether a Black project manager’s termination after only three months on the job was due to poor performance or fueled by racial animus harbored by a VP who allegedly called him ‘the lazy black guy’ and told his supervisor that if he didn’t ‘fire the black guy’ he would find someone who would. Denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s Title VII and Section 1981 race discrimination claims, a federal district court in Oklahoma rejected the employer’s contention that the supervisor’s testimony about the VP’s alleged racist remarks constituted hearsay and found that triable issues existed as to whether the VP was the ultimate decisionmaker, and if so, whether he acted on his alleged bias. Moreover, pretext could be inferred from the seemingly more favorable treatment of a white coworker with comparable poor performance (Strover v. Mears Group, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00427-D (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2025)).

Ongoing project. In late 2021, the employer hired the employee as a project manager (PM) overseeing an ongoing project involving the aerial installation of telecommunications lines with an annual salary of $100,000. The project, which had previously been overseen by a white PM, was already riddled with problems which both PMs were responsible for fixing. Their responsibilities also included compliance with National Electric Code (NEC) and National Electric Safety Code (NESC) specifications.

Preexisting issues. In February 2022, a VP sent a director to the project, who found a poor quality of work and failure to follow NESC specifications. The director testified to observing issues with both PM’s portions of the project. Though the director averred that the employee did not communicate a plan to remedy the situation, the employee claimed he had instituted a plan, “rode the line” every day, reassigned subcontractors, and supervised each task. He also testified that he was not able to finish any portion that he was working to fix before he was dismissed.

Termination. The director claimed he reassigned the employee to a different project but learned he was not showing up at the job site, which was “the last straw.” In late March, the director informed him that he was fired and submitted a termination form to HR which described the reason as “project not built to NSE or Customer Spec’s. Many re dues” and named the VP as his direct manager. However, the employee claimed that he was never reassigned and that the director told him only that he was “just doing what [he] was told.”

VP’s alleged racist remarks. Though the VP testified as to not having had any conversations with anyone about terminating the employee prior to his dismissal, one of the employee’s supervisors testified that the VP referred to him as “the lazy black guy,” and told him to “fire the black guy” or else he would find someone who would. The VP also allegedly remarked that the employee “talks well with white people and that’s why white people like him.” In a text, the VP remarked, “I want [the employee] gone, he is not qualified going forward….”

Other communications. The employee’s other supervisor relayed that the VP told him that if he did not dismiss the employee he would be let go along with “anyone that didn’t agree.” The supervisor refused and resigned in protest, describing the employee as one who “worked well with leadership,” won customer’s confidence, had no corrective actions against him, and lacked grounds for dismissal. The VP also sent an email to the white PM with the subject heading “Clearing the weeds,” which asked, “What about [the employee], your thoughts, you know mine?” The white PM responded, “If He’s willing to take a demotion and still have a good attitude? Thinks before he speaks!”

Direct evidence. The employer did not dispute that characterizing the employee as a “lazy black guy” who appeals to white people because he “speaks well” qualified as discriminatory statements, but instead argued that the supervisor’s testimony amounted to hearsay. The court disagreed, explaining that the testimony “would be hearsay if it were offered to prove that Plaintiff was in fact lazy or black,” but was not hearsay if “offered to prove that racial bias illegally factored into Defendant’s calculus in dismissing Plaintiff.” Moreover, insofar as the VP denied making such comments, this issue of credibility would be decided by a jury.

Triable issues also existed as to whether the VP was the ultimate decisionmaker, and if so, whether he acted on his alleged bias. In particular, the timing of VP’s alleged comments (the same month of the employee’s firing), taken in conjunction with their content, could convince a reasonable jury that discriminatory bias factored into his decision. In addition, the alleged remarks were made against the backdrop of his categorical denial of ever having had a conversation about the employee’s performance prior to his dismissal—a denial clearly refuted by the evidence.

Pretext. The employee’s claim also survived under the McDonnell Douglas framework since there was ample evidence that the employer’s proffered reason for firing him was pretextual. Record evidence that squarely contradicted the VP’s testimony that he never spoke with anyone about the employee’s performance, combined with the employer’s “about-face” concerning the identity of the decisionmaker, cast doubt on the employer’s alleged performance-based reason for the firing.

Pretext could also be inferred from evidence that the employer treated the white PM more favorably than the employee despite comparable poor performance. Indeed, the parties did not dispute that the project was not in an acceptable state when the employee arrived. The record also suggested that the white PM specifically oversaw “splicing,” the quality of which was widely understood to be inadequate. Nevertheless, an email indicated that the white worker was again placed over aerial work around the time of the employee’s dismissal, suggesting the company replaced “an allegedly poor performer, with another poor performer.”

Failure to mitigate. The court also denied the employee’s bid for partial summary judgement on the employer’s affirmative defense of mitigation. Though he initially rejected a position with another company paying $75,000 a year, and later accepted a position with another employer paying a roughly equivalent amount, a triable issue existed as to whether the initial position was “substantially equivalent” to his former position.

The case is No. 5:23-cv-00427-D.

Judge: DeGiusti, T.

Attorneys: Jonathan M. Irwin (Glass & Tabor) for Paul Strover. Courtney L. Bru (McAfee & Taft) for Mears Group Inc.

Companies: Mears Group Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EvidenceDiscovery RemediesDamages OklahomaNews