New Race Discrimination Lawsuit – Why Court Backed Employer

HR pros can learn a lot about how to deal with alleged race discrimination at work from a new federal appeals court decision.

The appeals court rejected the appeal of two former employees and upheld a ruling for the employer.

The appeal focused on allegations presented by Rod Warren and Eric Booker, who both worked at a Nucor Corporation steel plant in Arkansas.

Allegations of Race Discrimination

Warren started working at the plant in 1994. He received mixed feedback on his job performance during his tenure, which ended with his termination in 2022.

The serious trouble for him at work started in July 2021, when a co-worker accused him of using a racial slur.

When management talked to Warren about the allegation, things did not go well. He became “irate and aggressive” when informed of the report, the decision says, and profanely went on and on about how angry he was while denying the allegation. He even threatened the co-worker who reported the alleged incident.

Management responded by suspending Warren – with pay – while it investigated further.

The investigation didn’t confirm that Warren had used a slur, so he was allowed to return to work. But based on Warren’s conduct at the interview, the company decided he needed to attend anger management classes and informed him that he was being placed on a last chance agreement.

Warren signed the agreement but refused to sign a related warning.

About a month later, Warren filed an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the last-chance agreement and anger management class requirement amounted to race discrimination.

In February 2022, Warren again became profanely irate when a supervisor questioned his work performance. That was the last straw. His employment was terminated three days later.

‘Slave Driver’ Comment Raises Questions

Booker’s story is somewhat similar. He said he was singled out for discipline by a white supervisor when he asked for a vacation day. He added that a different white supervisor referred to himself as a “slave driver” while pretending to crack a whip.

The employer didn’t stall in its response to that report. In fact, it fired that supervisor just eight days later.

Retaliation, or Just Coincidental Timing?

When the employer separately issued Booker a warning for lateness, he said the warning was retaliation for his reports of alleged bias. He resigned in 2022.

The pair sued the employer, alleging race discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment. A lower court ruled against them, and they filed an appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) affirmed the ruling for the employer.

It rejected Warren’s race discrimination claim because he failed to point to any white employee who was on a last-chance agreement and was treated more leniently.

Next, the appeals court rejected both plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation.

Warren said that being placed on a last chance agreement and being terminated were retaliatory. But he was placed on the agreement before he filed his administrative charge and thereafter complained of alleged racial bias. In addition, he was not terminated until almost seven months after the meeting where he had alleged bias.

As for Booker, his tardiness warning was nothing more than a notice that he could be fired if he kept arriving late to work. It simply let him know that further unexcused absences would result in further discipline. This was not nearly enough to show unlawful retaliation, the court said.

No Hostile Work Environment

Finally, the appeals court found that neither employee was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Warren relied on the following allegations to support his claim of a hostile environment:

• A white co-worker falsely accused him of using a racial slur.
• In 2002, a black co-worker told him that a white supervisor said “there goes the neighborhood” upon learning that a black co-worker had bought a home nearby.
• Several employees – including Warren himself – circulated an email that discussed racially offensive topics and terms.
• A white employee posted a Facebook comment referencing the KKK.

None of these allegations was sufficient, the appeals court said. There was no evidence that the white co-worker’s racial slur allegation was motivated by race discrimination; the 20-year-old remark was not serious enough to prove the allegation; Warren was complicit in the email he said was offensive; and the employer quickly fired the employee who made the KKK comment on Facebook.

Similarly, it promptly fired the employee who was accused of making the slave driver remark.

The lower court’s ruling for the employer was affirmed.

Race Discrimination: Key Takeaways

Here are some key takeaways from this ruling.

First, when it comes to retaliation, remember that although timing is an important consideration, disciplinary action that follows closely on the heels of protected activity does not conclusively prove illegal retaliation. Employers are not handcuffed from meting out justified discipline just because the timing of a punishable offense coincides with protected activity, such as the filing of a charge of bias. But in these cases, employers must be especially prepared to show – preferably by solid documentation – that there is no causal connection between the two.

Second, it is absolutely crucial to take prompt remedial action when a report of discrimination by a supervisor is corroborated via a swift and thorough investigation by the employer. In this case, the employer twice quickly fired offending supervisors and thus avoided legal liability.

Third, employers have an obligation under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide a safe work environment for their employees. This includes a duty to minimize the threat of workplace violence. In this case, the employer quickly responded to the employee’s threats by suspending him pending further investigation. Employers should have a zero-tolerance policy regarding workplace violence and make full use of workplace violence prevention tools.

Fourth, though every employer should strive to keep even the slightest sign of harassment or discrimination out of its workplace environment, isolated incidents – unless extremely severe – generally do not create legal liability.

Warren v. Nucor Corp., No. 24-1132 (8th Cir. 9/9/25).