You Make The Call: You make the call: Was man fired due to his race or for his safety violation?

“I was shocked when I found out that Jimmy had performed a hazardous job assignment without first putting on his safety gear,” said Alice, the supervisor. “We were justified in firing him for his safety violation.”

“Jimmy thinks we made a big deal out of nothing,” said Ralph, the plant manager. “He thinks we dismissed him because he’s Black. Worse, he just filed a race discrimination lawsuit against us.”

“That’s ridiculous,” said Alice. “What evidence does Jimmy have to demonstrate that he was let go because of his race?”

“Jimmy claims that one of his white coworkers often used the N-word,” said Ralph. “He also alleges that his colleague ridiculed him because he’s married to a white woman. He says his coworker didn’t approve of interracial marriages.”

“It’s unfortunate that Jimmy had to endure racist comments and behavior,” said Alice. “Keep in mind, however, that we investigated Jimmy’s complaints of unlawful bias and found that they lacked merit.”

“Jimmy says we should’ve warned him before we fired him,” said Ralph.

“We felt that Jimmy’s safety violations were egregious,” said Alice. “Not only did he fail to put on his safety gear but he also neglected to lock out the hazardous equipment before he went into the danger zone. Remember, too, that the coworker who made the allegedly racist statements wasn’t involved in the decision to terminate Jimmy. We should challenge this lawsuit.”

Did the company win?

Yes. The company won. The court ruled that the employer was justified in firing the Black employee because of his safety violations.

The judge disagreed with the man’s contention that his safety missteps were minor, considering that he could’ve been severely injured. In the eyes of the court, the organization wasn’t required to warn the staff member before firing him, given the severity of his safety missteps.

In addition, the employer investigated the worker’s complaints and found they lacked merit. And the white crew member who made the allegedly racist statements wasn’t involved in the decision to fire the crew member, which meant that the Black worker was unable to link his dismissal to the racist conduct.

What it means: You can discipline rule violators

This ruling is good news for safety-conscious supervisors like you. It means you have the legal authority to discipline staffers who fail to adhere to safety protocols, even when they’re members of a protected class based on their age, race, gender, national origin, or some other characteristic.

Your takeaway: Courts are reluctant to rule against employers that care about the safety of their workers, even in situations when people might claim they were treated too harshly.

Based on Potts v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.

(From the June 23, 2025, issue of Safety Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)