Davis v. Kohler Co.
1:15-cv-01305
W.D. Tenn.Aug 22, 2017Background
- Richard Davis, an African-American former Kohler employee, was suspended March 11, 2015 after a powered industrial vehicle (PIV/forklift) incident in which coworker Terry Hollingsworth reported being struck and slightly injured; Kohler investigated and terminated Davis on March 17, 2015 for violating PIV policy, failing to report the incident, refusing to accept responsibility, and perceived dishonesty during the investigation.
- Kohler had progressive-discipline and PIV policies requiring unobstructed view, immediate reporting of incidents, drug testing and investigation when property damage or injury occur; Kohler sometimes skips discipline steps depending on severity.
- Multiple written witness statements and HR interview notes reported Davis was driving with an obstructed view; Davis denied wrongdoing and maintained he could see and did not report because he thought he had not hit anyone.
- Davis alleged racial discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, THRA), retaliation for an interracial relationship with his supervisor, and a § 1981 claim based on a 2013 reassignment from KOS Facilitator to Team Leader.
- The court treated the witness statements as admissible for the limited purpose of showing Kohler’s good-faith belief (i.e., the factual basis for the termination decision), and granted Kohler summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (termination) — prima facie and pretext | Davis says termination was race-motivated and decisionmakers had exhibited racial/hairstyle bias; comparators existed who were treated better | Kohler says Davis cannot identify a similarly situated non‑protected comparator; it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (safety violation, failure to report, dishonesty) and honestly relied on investigation facts | Granted for Kohler — Davis failed to identify proper comparators and did not show pretext or discriminatory motive |
| Retaliation (interracial relationship) | Davis contends termination was retaliation for his friendship/relationship with Caucasian supervisor Brian Halford | Kohler says friendship is not protected activity; no evidence of causation; concerns voiced were about appearance of favoritism, not race | Granted for Kohler — no protected activity or causal connection shown |
| § 1981 claim for 2013 reassignment | Davis contends reassignment was discriminatory and impeded advancement | Kohler points to a lateral transfer with no loss of pay/benefits or material duties change, justified by performance concerns | Granted for Kohler — reassignment was not an adverse employment action |
| Admissibility/use of witness statements at summary judgment | Davis objected to unsworn witness statements as hearsay and not based on personal knowledge | Kohler argued statements were admissible to show Kohler’s belief (effect on listener) and to justify termination decision | Court considered statements for limited purpose (employer’s good‑faith belief) and relied on them for whether Kohler had a reasonable basis to terminate |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard and inference drawing)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must present specific facts to avoid summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine issue standard for summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (but‑for causation in retaliation claims)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (employer's "honest belief" and reliance on particularized facts)
- Ladd v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc., 552 F.3d 495 (need for similarly situated comparators to probe employer's motive)