Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121

Background

Zyeair Smith and Sam Edwards, African-American Hiland Dairy sanitation workers in Omaha, were terminated after Smith used Edwards’s company ID to clock Edwards out after Edwards had left the premises; Hiland cited "theft of time" and dishonesty.
Both employees initially denied the conduct but Smith later admitted after being shown video evidence; Hiland investigated and fired both within a week.
Smith and Edwards filed discrimination charges with the OHRRD and EEOC; OHRRD found reasonable cause and conciliation failed; EEOC issued right-to-sue letters and plaintiffs sued under Title VII and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act.
Plaintiffs asserted two white employees (Bernie Turbes and Steve Rezac) committed comparable misconduct (failing to clock out; sleeping on the job) but were not terminated.
The district court granted Hiland Dairy summary judgment, finding plaintiffs failed to show pretext for discrimination under McDonnell Douglas; plaintiffs appealed and the appeals were consolidated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved pretext for race discrimination after employer offered legitimate reason for termination	Smith/Edwards: Hiland’s proffered reason (time theft/dishonesty) is pretext—similarly situated white employees received lesser discipline; investigation was flawed; supervisor offered shifting explanations; OHRRD found reasonable cause	Hiland: Presented legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; Turbes and Rezac were not similarly situated due to differing facts and mitigating circumstances; investigation met requirements; explanations were consistent	Affirmed: Plaintiffs failed to show pretext; comparators not similarly situated; no substantial inconsistent explanations; OHRRD findings inadmissible at summary judgment without authentication
Whether Turbes and Rezac were sufficiently similarly situated for comparison	Plaintiffs: Conduct was comparable in seriousness, supporting inference of disparate treatment	Hiland: Turbes was a foreman with permissible on-premises lunch status and claimed confusion; Rezac was long-term and facts about sleeping were uncertain—both distinctions	Held: Not similarly situated in all relevant respects; distinctions dispositive
Whether flaws in Hiland’s investigation or deviation from policies established pretext	Plaintiffs: Investigation incomplete (e.g., not examining timecard) and BGA/disciplinary procedures require investigation	Hiland: Employer may structure investigations; only requirement is that an investigation occur; no evidence investigation was incomplete	Held: No evidence investigation was flawed in a way that shows discriminatory motive; procedural flaws alone insufficient without other evidence of pretext
Whether administrative agency (OHRRD) findings could be considered on summary judgment	Plaintiffs: OHRRD findings showing reasonable cause should be considered	Hiland: Exhibit unauthenticated and not admissible in present form	Held: District court correctly excluded the OHRRD findings at summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to authenticate or submit them in admissible form; may be presented at trial if authenticated

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination without direct evidence)
Johnson v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 605 (proof of pretext required after employer articulates nondiscriminatory reason)
Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 794 F.3d 899 (methods to show pretext including disparate treatment and policy deviations)
Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (rigorous standard for similarly situated comparator showing)
Gannon Int’l, Ltd. v. Blocker, 684 F.3d 785 (evidence at summary judgment must be capable of presentation in admissible form at trial)