A machinist claims he was erroneously placed on an unpaid suspension due, in part, to race discrimination. His employer, meanwhile, attributed the suspension to a “bookkeeping” error following a change in its progressive discipline policy.
 |
What happened
In 2004, John Deere & Company hired “Turner,” who worked his way up to the position of machinist 3 years later. Still in that role, he operates a grinder on the second shift at the company’s Waterloo Works plant in Iowa, which produces tractors.
Turner is African American. He alleges that a third-shift grinder operator, who is a white male, repeatedly used racial epithets at work.
The collective bargaining agreement between Turner’s employer and union provided for progressive discipline, including a 3-day suspension in cases where an employee fails to work a scheduled shift. In June 2011, Turner was suspended for that reason, but it was considered a “paper only” suspension, because he never actually served the suspension. For the purposes of progressive discipline, the suspension stayed on his record.
About 8 months later, under the next step of discipline, Turner received a 2-week, paper-only suspension for failing to work scheduled overtime.
He did not receive any progressive discipline after the third-shift grinder operator called the company’s compliance hotline in January 2013 to complain that Turner’s supervisor was not addressing his poor performance and insubordination. Among other things, the employee complained that the supervisor was not managing Turner’s failure to set up the grinder and process parts properly. In addition, the employee reported that Turner had sworn at his supervisor, a white female.
The company’s Labor Relations department investigated and concluded that the supervisor was not effectively managing Turner. As a result, the supervisor received coaching. The department, Human Resources (HR), and the supervisor also notified Turner of the need to improve his performance and attitude—or face consequences.
A manufacturing engineer determined in March 2013 that the department Turner worked in was not complying with the company’s manufacturing specifications. An inspection revealed that a grinder operator not blowing residue off the grinder fixture between parts, as company policy dictated, might have been resulting in part defects. Turner insisted that he was blowing off his grinder between parts, but inspections revealed that some of the parts that he produced were defective.
In a disciplinary hearing on March 20, 2013, Turner and his union rep denied the accusation that he had not followed company procedures, but his employer concluded otherwise. Turner was placed on a 30-day, unpaid suspension.
Up until a few weeks before that, a 30-day suspension would have been the next step in progressive discipline. However, the company and union had agreed on February 28, 2013, that employees would receive the equivalent of a written warning—instead of a 3-day suspension—for failing to work scheduled overtime and that the change would be retroactive.
As a result, his previous suspension for failing to work overtime should have been reduced to a warning but was not—at least initially. Since his disciplinary record had not been updated, it indicated that Turner was subject to a 30-day suspension when, in fact, he should have been suspended for only 2 weeks.
Turner challenged the 30-day suspension, and when the company realized the error, it corrected his disciplinary record and paid him for the pay and benefits he would have received were it not for the 30-day suspension. Although the company contended that the oversight was a bookkeeping error, Turner alleged that the error “was a pretext for the discrimination” he had suffered.
He sued his employer, alleging race discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. The district court ruled in favor of the company. Turner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
What the court said
The appeals court affirmed. On his race discrimination claim, Turner “concedes that his race was not the sole reason for the complained of conduct that he suffered; however, he does claim that his race was a motivating factor that played a role in” his suspension. The court disagreed, saying, “Put simply, … [Turner] speculates race was a motivating factor in his suspension, but has failed to show it.”
Regarding the race harassment/hostile work environment claim, Turner had pointed to “sworn affidavits” from three coworkers, allegedly showing that he was subjected to racial harassment in the workplace. However, the appeals court described those “unsworn and unattested statements purportedly from … [his] co-workers,” as well as his own related statements, as “incompetent and inadmissible evidence.” Banks v. John Deere and Company et al. (No. 15-2058) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Cir., 7/14/16)
When progressive discipline (or other) policies change, always train supervisors and managers on the updated versions. Also, train them on how to consistently discipline employees who do not comply with established policies and procedures. And, if supervisors are struggling with that task, consider coaching to fine-tune their skills. Finally, always give employees sufficient training on their job tasks and on your organization’s policies and procedures.