Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Court reinstates bias case of black worker whose supervisor kept cocked firearm

Reprints

An Ohio appeals court has overturned a lower court's dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit in a case in which a company supervisor would allegedly talk with black employees with a loaded, cocked firearm on his desk.

Don O. Smith began working for Columbus, Ohio-based Superior Production L.L.C., a manufacturing company that produces parts for the automotive industry, in the 1980s, and by 2002 had risen to the position of production supervisor, in charge of operating a whole production facility and reporting directly to general management, according to the May 8 ruling by the Ohio Court of Appeals in Columbus in Don O. Smith v. Superior Production, LLC. His direct supervisor, Duane Holstein, is a son of the company's president.

During a halt in production on Oct. 20, 2008, Mr. Holstein stormed out of his office and asked what had happened, according to the ruling. When Mr. Smith replied there was a problem with the tools, Mr. Holstein replied, “Well, why don't you just sign out and go home?” followed by a racial epithet.

Mr. Smith clocked out, and after talking with the general manager, was transferred to another plant and demoted.

%%BREAK%%

In December 2008, Superior began laying off employees. Mr. Smith was the eighth employee to be terminated within the first round of layoffs, and the first employee in the production department.

After some months, when the company began rehiring workers, he was not rehired, “despite his years of experience and former high position with the company,” according to the ruling.

In December 2011, Mr. Smith filed a complaint against the company in state court, charging race discrimination, race-based retaliation and hostile work environment, among other claims.

He testified that when he was called into Mr. Holstein's office, Mr. Holstein would deliberately cock his handgun and set it on his desk. Another African-American employee offered similar testimony. After a four-day trial, a jury awarded Mr. Smith $549,307.77 in damages.

The trial court judge, however, determined there was insufficient evidence to support Mr. Smith's claims against Superior and granted a “motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,” dismissing the case. He also conditionally granted Superior's motion for a new trial, which was superseded by the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Mr. Smith appealed the ruling. An appeals panel in a 2-1 ruling reinstated the race-based termination, race-based retaliation-recall and hostile work environment claims and held that the court erred in conditionally granting Superior a new trial.

The appeals court said, “Smith was demoted after a member of the family which owns Superior demeaned him personally. Then, despite his 20 years of service to the company, Smith was one of the first employees to be laid-off.

“Smith and other African-American employees were demeaned and intimidated by having a loaded firearm placed in front of them and cocked when conversations were held with a white member of the management team, especially a white manager who was a member of the family which owned the business.

“Then when an economic downturn occurred, Smith was one of the first to be laid-off, and he was never recalled, despite his extended service to Superior in all levels of work and management.

%%BREAK%%

“Given those facts, Superior's liability was clear. The trial court abused its discretion in overturning the jury's finding as to liability, especially given the clear findings on that issue reflected in the jury's interrogatories.”

The panel, however, held that the trial court did not commit an error in finding the damage award was inappropriate, and in offsetting the compensatory damage award with unemployment compensation. The case was remanded for new proceedings “to determine appropriate compensatory and punitive damages.”

The minority opinion said in part that Mr. Smith did not establish sufficient direct evidence of race discrimination.