Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—W.D. Tenn.: Black employee’s claim African supervisor discriminated against him based on race, sex fails, (Sep 16, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The Staples employee argued that his supervisor, who was from Cameroon, could not “culturally relate” to Americans.

An African-American associate for Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., failed to convince a federal court in Tennessee that his Black supervisor, who was from Africa, discriminated against him based on race or sex. Granting summary judgment against the employee’s Title VII claims, the court found that he did not identify any non-African-American employees who were treated more favorably—indeed, all of his coworkers were African-American—and he failed to show his female coworkers were treated differently in any relevant respect. His retaliation claim also failed on summary judgment (Davis v. Staples Contract and Commercial Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02217-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 12, 2025)).

Alleged harassment. As a lean replenishment associate, the employee operated a forklift, replenished inventory, and prepared items for shipment. He claimed his immediate supervisor, who was from Cameroon, harassed him and discriminated against him on the basis of his race and sex, including by altering his start time so as to reduce his hours and affect productivity rankings; removing him from the clean-up crew and forklift duties; denying him access to his productivity records; negatively altering those records; berating him in meetings; and issuing multiple retaliatory disciplinary write-ups.

For its part, Staples claimed the employee was disciplined for ongoing performance issues and inappropriate workplace behavior. He received multiple counseling statements and disciplinary notices between March 2020 and May 2021, including several final written warnings and was terminated as a result of an altercation with a coworker in November 2021.

Race discrimination. In support of his race discrimination claim, the employee alleged that his supervisor made offensive comments about African-Americans, including calling them “lazy,” and treated them with contempt and hostility. The supervisor, he argued, discriminated against African-Americans because they were not from Africa and because he could not “culturally relate” to them as Americans. According to the employee, this treatment, which was based on racial animus, created a hostile work environment.

He failed, however, to identify any similarly situated non-African-American employees who were treated more favorably, said the court, noting that not only did he acknowledge that all of his coworkers on the shift were African-American, he was unable to identify a single non-African-American coworker.

Moreover, his repeated testimony that his supervisor harassed and “created a hostile work environment for everyone” on his shift undermined his claim he was singled out or treated differently because of his race, the court observed, noting that the Sixth Circuit has recognized that when an alleged harasser treats all employees poorly regardless of their protected characteristics, such conduct does not constitute discrimination because of race.

Pretext. Even if the employee were able to establish a prima facie case, Staples proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination—his altercation with a coworker and his prior disciplinary record—and he was unable to show pretext. While he claimed he “did nothing wrong” during the altercation with the coworker that led to his termination, and that the coworker was the aggressor who used racially charged language, he did not dispute that he was involved in the altercation, only the way Staples characterized the events, which was not enough to show pretext, said the court.

Further, the HR consultant who investigated the altercation determined that both the employee and the coworker violated company policy. Because the employee had multiple final warnings and the coworker had no prior behavioral discipline, she recommended different disciplinary actions, an approach the court found to be consistent with a progressive discipline policy rather than discrimination.

And while the employee identified the coworker as a similarly situated employee who received more favorable treatment, the court pointed to their different disciplinary histories and the fact that the employee was on a final warning at the time of the altercation. As a result, the court granted summary judgment against this claim.

Sex discrimination. The employee also alleged the supervisor enforced rules against him that were not enforced against female employees and required him to perform work for female employees, such as trash collection. Indeed, he testified, the supervisor favored “attractive” women and company management placed him on a performance improvement plan because of this. But this, said the court, did not accurately reflect Staples’ position on the supervisor’s conduct as the evidence showed Staples believed the employee’s “perception was unfounded” and the supervisor was assigned an “action plan... to ensure that there was not an appearance of preferential treatment.”

As to the employee’s claim the female employees he identified as comparators were treated more favorably, he admitted they were assigned the same responsibilities as him, including trash duties, and were subjected to similar start time delays.

Granting summary judgment against this claim as well, the court noted again that Staples proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing the employee and his subjective belief he was treated unfairly because of his sex was insufficient to establish pretext.

Retaliation. Finally, the court turned to the employee’s claim he engaged in protected activity by complaining about race and sex discrimination and filing an EEOC charge, and his supervisor retaliated against him by, among other things, changing his start time, removing him from forklift duties, isolating him in separate meetings, denying him access to productivity reports, and writing him up for protected activity. He also pointed to the suspicious timing of his termination following his complaint about racial discrimination by his coworker with whom he had skirmished.

He failed, however, to show the decisionmakers in his termination had any knowledge of his protected activity. He argued that they must have known about his complaints because they were well-documented, management had received a litigation hold regarding his EEOC charge, and his final complaint about racial harassment, which one of the decisionmakers investigated, was itself a protected activity. But even assuming it could find the decisionmakers had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, the court found he failed to establish causation given the substantial time lapse of at least six months between the company allegedly learning of the protected conduct and his termination. Accordingly, this claim was also dismissed on summary judgment.

The case is No. 2:22-cv-02217-MSN-atc.

Judge: Norris, M.

Attorneys: John W. Simmons (Simmons Law Firm) for Lorenzo Davis, Jr. Kaitlyn Abernathy Hansen (Littler Mendelson) for Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc.

Companies: Staples Contract and Commercial Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge TennesseeNews