Employment Discrimination Race Comparator.

Byline: Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff's race discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII, the judgment must be vacated in light of evidence of differential treatment.

"This case arises from Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff based on his falsification of bids that were submitted by potential contractors for a large-scale construction project renovating the Chrysler Technology Center in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff does not dispute that he falsified the relevant bids. Instead, he argues that Defendant used that falsification as an excuse to illegally terminate him based on his race. Plaintiff contends that if he was not African American, but instead was Caucasian, Defendant would not have terminated him for his conduct. As evidence of this, Plaintiff points to Defendant's past decision not to fire a similarly situated Caucasian employee who engaged in conduct comparable to Plaintiff's. Based on this differential treatment, Plaintiff argues that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant's decision to terminate him was motivated by racial discrimination. For the reasons that follow, we agree.

" [T]he only issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue as to pretext based on differential treatment between himself and his alleged comparator, Patrick Bergin.

"In order to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to pretext based on differential treatment, Plaintiff must set forth some evidence that he was similarly situated 'in all of the relevant aspects' to an employee who lacked his protected characteristic and received preferential treatment.

"[Defendant] FCA US admits that Plaintiff and Bergin were subject to differential treatment for their misconduct, but argues that the differential treatment was justified because each employee's conduct was materially distinct. FCA US points to two distinctions: first, it argues that Plaintiff's misconduct was more serious and his violations of the company's policies more numerous than Bergin's; and second, the results of Plaintiff's investigation were conclusive, while the results of Bergin's investigation were inconclusive. While these arguments may...