Article Originally Published Here
Evidence of inconsistent treatment of a white coworker warranted trial.
A federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit by a security guard who alleged racial discrimination, ruling that a jury must decide whether he was disciplined more harshly than a white coworker accused of the same misconduct. A federal court in Michigan found genuine disputes of material fact existed and denied summary judgment for City Shield Security Services. The guard, who is black, was discharged after two sleeping-on-duty violations, while the coworker received lighter discipline and was later rehired. The court held that questions about comparator treatment, the employer’s policies, and the timing and reason for the coworker’s termination and rehire must be resolved at trial (Perkins v. City Shield Security Services, No. 23-cv-12384 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3, 2025)).
Employment history and termination. The guard was hired in August 2022 as a unionized security officer. Company policy classified sleeping on duty as an offense subject to escalating discipline. Under the employer’s disciplinary matrix, a first violation carried a 40-hour suspension, and a second violation warranted termination. The policy also stated that disciplinary actions were not automatic and must account for mitigating circumstances.
In February 2023, the guard was suspended for sleeping on duty. The following month he was observed sleeping again and was terminated in early March 2023. Video footage confirmed the second incident.
After his discharge, the security officer learned that a white coworker had been cited for sleeping on duty on at least four occasions between December 2022 and February 2023. That coworker received warnings and suspensions but was not terminated until later in March, and the parties disputed whether that separation stemmed from sleeping offenses or unrelated misconduct. The coworker was subsequently rehired, while the black guard was not told he was eligible for reemployment.
Union grievance and EEOC charge. The union steward filed a grievance in March 2023 alleging “blatant racism, discrimination, and unfair treatment” in disciplinary practices. Days later, the coworker’s employment ended, though the record conflicted on the grounds.
The guard pursued a charge with the EEOC, which issued a notice of right to sue in June 2023. He then filed suit, asserting violations of Title VII and Sec. 1981 based on disparate treatment in discipline and termination. After discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was consistent with policy and that no evidence showed unlawful bias.
Burden-shifting analysis. The court analyzed the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applicable to circumstantial evidence of discrimination. The court noted that the employer did not contest that the guard satisfied the first three elements of a prima facie case: protected status, qualifications, and adverse action. The dispute centered on whether he could demonstrate replacement by someone outside his class or more favorable treatment of a similarly situated comparator.
Comparator evidence. The court found sufficient evidence that the coworker was a valid comparator. Both were security guards subject to the same sleeping-on-duty policy and the same disciplinary decision-makers. Both committed two violations within a six-month period. Yet the coworker was retained after repeated violations, given a verbal warning in lieu of suspension, and later suspended rather than terminated for subsequent incidents.
Although the employer argued that disciplinary “points” reset every six months and that the coworker’s discipline was affected by scheduling difficulties and mitigating circumstances, the court emphasized that such explanations raised credibility issues for a jury. The absence of written documentation for the alleged reset and rehire policies further supported treating the coworker as similarly situated.
Pretext analysis. The employer offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination based on two sleeping violations documented by video. The guard did not dispute the conduct. The issue therefore became whether that justification was pretextual.
The court held that a jury could reasonably find pretext because the coworker engaged in “substantially identical conduct” but was disciplined less harshly. The court noted that the Sixth Circuit recognizes that differing “strike” policies based on race can constitute disparate treatment. The fact that the coworker was eventually terminated did not erase the evidence of differential discipline, nor did his later rehire diminish the inference of bias.
Rehire policy. Testimony conflicted on whether a policy existed allowing rehire six months after termination. The employer asserted such a policy applied to the coworker, but the union steward testified he had never heard of it, and the policy was not in writing. The guard stated he was never informed of rehire eligibility. These disputes contributed to the court’s finding that factual issues must be resolved at trial.
The case is No. 23-cv-12384.
Judge: Parker, L.
Attorneys: Philip Mazzotti (Harding Mazzotti) for Arrington Perkins. David E. Hart (Maddin Hauser Roth & Heller) for City Shield Security Services.
Companies: City Shield Security Services
Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge MichiganNews
One Response