Vulenzo Blount, Jr. v. Stanley Eng'g Fastening, 55 F.4th 504

Vulenzo Blount, a Black forklift operator at Stanley Engineering Fastening, was investigated twice in 2018 for using a smartwatch/phone while on the plant floor; a coworker Bonnie Taylor reported both incidents.
After the January incident Stanley and Blount executed a two-year last-chance agreement (LCA) on February 7, 2018: any additional safety violation would result in immediate termination.
On August 28, 2018 Taylor reported seeing Blount using his cell phone while seated on an idling forklift; Stanley investigated, reviewed Blount’s phone records, and terminated him the next day for violating the LCA.
Blount had filed an EEOC complaint in July 2015 (dismissed April 2016) alleging denial of promotions; he alleged his 2018 firing was discriminatory (race) and retaliatory (KCRA claims).
The district court granted summary judgment to Stanley, excluded two of Blount’s affidavits and an expert report by his wife, and denied discovery-related relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Racial discrimination — prima facie (similarly situated comparators)	Blount: several white employees engaged in similar/worse conduct but were not fired	Stanley: proposed comparators differed materially in seriousness, LCA violations, or lack of repeat misconduct	Held: Comparators not similarly situated; Blount fails prima facie showing
Racial discrimination — pretext	Blount: Taylor's reports were unreliable; employer's reason was fabricated	Stanley: phone records and investigation corroborated reports; legitimate safety-based nondiscriminatory reason	Held: Stanley’s reason supported by facts; Blount did not show pretext
Retaliation (causal connection)	Blount: termination was retaliation for his 2015 EEOC complaint and assistance to EEOC	Stanley: decision-makers were unaware of the 2015 complaint; over three years elapsed; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason	Held: No causal link or temporal proximity; retaliation claim fails
Evidentiary/discovery rulings	Blount: district court abused discretion by excluding affidavits, striking expert report, limiting discovery	Stanley: exclusions and discovery rulings were proper under rules; affidavits lacked proper form/personal knowledge; expert unqualified/unreliable	Held: No abuse of discretion; exclusions and discovery rulings affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; reasonable jury inquiry)
Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (similarly situated comparator requirement for prima facie case)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (comparators must be "in all relevant respects")
Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605 (misconduct must be of comparable seriousness)
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity and causation in retaliation claims)
Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488 (plaintiff must show employer did not honestly believe its stated reason)
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (unsubstantiated allegations and speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)