Eleventh Circuit Revives Race Bias Claims Over Drug Test Firings

Eleventh Circuit Revives Race Bias Claims Over Drug Test Firings

A published Eleventh Circuit opinion issued September 1, 2026 reverses summary judgment for an Alabama construction company and its parent, sending race discrimination and retaliation claims by two Black laborers back to the district court. The panel decided only that a jury could hear them.

Information last verified on September 11, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: The Eleventh Circuit covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia, and this published opinion binds the federal district courts in those three states. It decides that the claims survive summary judgment on this record. It does not decide whether the companies violated Title VII or 42 U.S.C. 1981, and it awards nobody anything.

What Happened

Coal Bed Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Pate Holdings, Inc. Coal Bed Services has one shareholder, Pate Holdings, which in turn has one shareholder, Luther Stan Pate IV, who testified as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative for both companies (p. 3 n.1). Coal Bed Services was the employer and is a defendant on both the Title VII and the section 1981 claims; Pate Holdings is a defendant only on the section 1981 claims (p. 3 n.1).

DeMarkus Hall and Eddie Hughes, who are Black, worked as laborer-operators from September 2020 until Coal Bed Services terminated them in February 2021 (pp. 3-4). Hall died after the events in the case, and Anne Guthrie, the administratrix of his estate, was substituted as a party (p. 3 n.2).

One point governs everything below. Because this is an appeal from summary judgment, the court viewed the facts in the light most favorable to Hall and Hughes and drew reasonable inferences in their favor, observing that what is considered to be the facts at the summary judgment stage may not turn out to be the actual facts if the case goes to trial (p. 4 n.3, quoting Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir. 1996)). The account that follows is the summary judgment record as the panel read it, not a set of findings.

In January 2021, Hall and Hughes had a verbal altercation with supervisor James Toxey. Hughes testified that Toxey was talking to them as though they were beneath him. Hall testified that when he confronted Toxey about the behavior, Toxey brushed it off by saying he had more black friends than they did (p. 5). Supervisor Willie Williams broke up the confrontation, and the two men told Williams that Toxey was racist and was treating them differently from other employees. Williams asked no follow-up questions, discussed the complaint with nobody except Toxey, who denied it, and concluded the dispute came down to conflicting personalities (p. 5).

On February 19, 2021, according to Williams' later deposition testimony, an employee reported seeing Hall and Hughes smoking marijuana on the job. Williams gathered their whole team, ordered a drug test, and warned that failing or refusing meant termination (p. 6). Hall and Hughes refused and left the jobsite. So did Brandon Ramsey, a White coworker who worked on a crew primarily supervised by Williams and at the same jobsites on most days, and who walked off understanding he was being terminated (pp. 4, 6).

Two features of that day drive the appeal. Hall and Hughes denied under oath that they ever smoked marijuana at work, and there are no written reports corroborating Williams' account of the tip, even though the company had documented other terminations for failed drug tests (p. 6). And before Williams gave that testimony, the company had taken a different position in its position statement to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, representing that the drug test was random and saying nothing about any report of drug use (p. 6). Whether a refused or failed workplace test follows a worker afterward is a separate question we address in does a failed drug test show up on your record.

A few hours after walking off, Ramsey called Williams and asked what he could do to keep from losing his job. Executive Alan Davis met with him the same day and offered the job back on the single condition that he submit to random drug tests going forward. Ramsey returned the next workday under no other restrictions, was not required to pass a test before returning, and took his first test at least several weeks later (pp. 6-7).

Hall and Hughes heard about that deal and wanted the same terms. Hall called Williams the day after losing his job and several more times over February and March 2021; Williams was short with him and said he would call back but never did. Hall called Pate, who also said he would call back and did not, and who did not answer a follow-up call. Pate remembered that period differently, describing an in-person conversation in which he begged Hall to stop using drugs so he could come back; Hall denied that conversation ever happened and denied receiving any reemployment offer, and the panel took Hall's testimony as true at this stage (p. 8 n.5). Hughes texted Williams and got no response, then reached another supervisor by phone and said he was willing to accept the same conditions Ramsey had accepted; that supervisor also promised a call that never came (pp. 7-8).

All three men had worked four hours the day they refused the test. The company paid Hall and Hughes for four hours and paid Ramsey for a full shift (p. 8). In March 2021, several weeks after the firings, Coal Bed Services rehired Michael Morris, a White laborer it had fired eight months earlier for failing a drug test, requiring a single test before he started and none afterward. The next laborer hired was also White (pp. 8-9).

Hall and Hughes sued in the Northern District of Alabama, No. 7:22-cv-00513-LSC (p. 1), pleading four claims: Title VII discrimination and retaliation against Coal Bed Services, and section 1981 discrimination and retaliation against both companies (p. 9). The district court granted summary judgment on all four (p. 9).

What the Law Actually Says

Two routes past summary judgment

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination because of an individual's race, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) (p. 10). To defeat an employer's summary judgment motion on a circumstantial record, a plaintiff may use the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework or the convincing mosaic approach, which the Eleventh Circuit has characterized as "two paths to the same destination," namely the ordinary summary judgment standard. McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2024) (p. 10). Whichever path a plaintiff takes, the destination is an answer to whether the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer illegal discrimination. Id. (p. 10).

The panel recited the familiar catalogue of mosaic evidence: "(1) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and other bits and pieces from which an inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn; (2) systematically better treatment of similarly-situated employees; and (3) [a showing] that the employer's justification is pretextual." Poer v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n, 100 F.4th 1325, 1337 (11th Cir. 2024) (pp. 10-11).

The panel's mosaic here has six tiles (pp. 11-12). Four restate facts set out above: the asymmetric rehiring, the asymmetric pay for an identical four hours, the two White replacement hires, and the shift from random to tip-driven in the company's account of the test. A fifth comes from the plaintiffs' own deposition testimony that the company gave them the dirtiest jobs among the laborers and withheld the development and advancement opportunities it gave White employees at the same level (pp. 4, 11-12). The sixth is Toxey's habit of calling the two men "y'all" and "them" while always naming White employees, plus the one occasion he belittled them and said he had more black friends than they did (p. 12).

Taking that evidence with the inferences due a nonmovant, the panel concluded that a jury reasonably could find that Coal Bed Services racially discriminated against the two men when it terminated them and did not consider them for reemployment on the same terms as Ramsey (p. 12). That is the precise shape of the holding. Not that it did, but that a jury could so find.

The company argued that getting past summary judgment required "actual evidence of a racial motive," which the panel read as a demand for direct evidence. The panel rejected that, citing Tynes v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939, 946 (11th Cir. 2023), which describes a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence as simply enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer intentional discrimination in an employment action, and its footnote 2, which states that a plaintiff proceeding on that standard may point to any relevant and admissible evidence. As the panel put it, circumstantial evidence is actual evidence (pp. 12-13).

What a comparator is, and why this one did not control

A comparator argument is an argument about similarity. Under McDonnell Douglas the district court found Ramsey was not a close enough comparator because he was not similarly situated in all material respects: although all three men were subject to the same policies and had the same supervisor, Ramsey had more construction experience, longer tenure, and a different title and different tasks. Hall and Hughes shoveled mud out of holes, cleaned up and tore down buildings, leveled ground, and did other manual labor; Ramsey was a heavy equipment operator running excavators, bulldozers, compactors, dump trucks and rock trucks (p. 13).

The panel did not disturb that. It assumed, without deciding, that the difference in length of service and nature of tasks meant Ramsey was not a valid comparator for McDonnell Douglas purposes (p. 13). It then held that the assumption did not matter, because this was a convincing mosaic analysis, citing McCreight, 117 F.4th at 1335, for the proposition that employees with significant evidence of illegal discrimination who lack the comparator evidence often required under McDonnell Douglas can use the mosaic approach instead (pp. 13-14). Ramsey's treatment still counted as evidence, and the panel called it highly significant, because he engaged in the same misconduct on the same day at the same time, was terminated for it, wanted his job back like the others, and unlike the others was rehired immediately (p. 14).

Footnote 6 on page 14 does related work. The company pointed out that nobody had reported Ramsey for smoking marijuana. The panel answered that the conflict between the EEOC position statement and the deposition testimony poses two possible inferences, either that the company was not telling the whole truth to the EEOC or that it was not being truthful when it remodeled its story during litigation, and that at this stage the court must infer it told the truth sooner rather than later, meaning there was no report at all (p. 14 n.6).

Section 1981 discrimination and but-for causation

Section 1981 provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. 42 U.S.C. 1981 (p. 15). A plaintiff must prove that discrimination was a but-for cause of the loss of his employment contract, citing Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 340-41 (2020), and Phillips v. Legacy Cabinets, 87 F.4th 1313, 1321 and n.5 (11th Cir. 2023) (p. 15). The panel said that is the same standard it had just applied to the single-motive Title VII discrimination claim, and it reached the same result: a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment (p. 15).

Retaliation: protected activity, causation, pretext

Title VII bars retaliation against an employee who has opposed a practice the statute makes unlawful. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) (p. 16). Where a retaliation claim rests on circumstantial evidence, the circuit has primarily used McDonnell Douglas on summary judgment review. Yelling v. St. Vincent's Health Sys., 82 F.4th 1329, 1337 (11th Cir. 2023). The plaintiff shows statutorily protected activity, an adverse action, and causation; the employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; the plaintiff shows each proffered reason is pretextual (pp. 16-17). Footnote 7 adds that the mosaic route is available for retaliation too, citing Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300, 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2023) (p. 16 n.7).

Two elements were uncontested. Complaining to Williams that Toxey had discriminated against them because of race is statutorily protected activity, and being fired about a month later and then refused rehire is an adverse action (p. 17).

On the employer's first defense, the panel agreed that a complaint must be objectively reasonable, Clover v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999), but not that a plaintiff must prove the conduct complained of was actually unlawful. The conduct opposed need only be close enough to unlawful to support an objectively reasonable belief that it is. Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295, 1311 (11th Cir. 2016) (pp. 17-18). Toxey's behavior, viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, cleared that bar (p. 18).

On causation, the standard the panel quoted is that a plaintiff need only show the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated. Clover, 176 F.3d at 1354. Where the decision-maker knew of the protected conduct, temporal proximity between that awareness and the adverse action can be enough. Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 1999); Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). Farley treated seven weeks between complaint and termination as close enough to create a causal nexus for prima facie purposes. Here the gap was about four weeks (p. 19).

The district court had concluded, relying on two unpublished and non-binding decisions, that the report of marijuana use and the refusal to test broke the causal chain (p. 20); the panel flagged Phillips, 87 F.4th at 1327 n.13, for the point that unpublished decisions are not binding. It then identified what the plaintiffs offered against the premise: sworn denials of on-the-job drug use, the absence of written documentation for the alleged report where the company had documentation for past reports involving workers who had not engaged in protected activity, the company's statement to the EEOC that the test was random, and the fact that Ramsey's identical refusal was not treated as misconduct barring his immediate rehire (p. 20). That was enough for a prima facie case and enough on pretext (p. 20).

The panel framed the bottom line as a single question, whether a reasonable jury could find that the two men were fired or not rehired in retaliation for their complaint, and answered that a reasonable juror could answer that question either way (p. 21), citing Jefferson v. Sewon Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 926 (11th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment should not have been granted. For the section 1981 retaliation claims, the panel applied Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1134 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), under which retaliation claims are cognizable under section 1981 and analyzed under the same framework as Title VII claims, and reached the same conclusion (p. 21). The judgment was reversed and the case remanded (p. 21).

Title VII and section 1981 are not interchangeable

The opinion analyzes the two statutes in parallel and, on these claims, applies the same causation standard and the same retaliation framework. That parallelism can obscure how differently the two statutes are built. The points below come from the statutes and the EEOC, not from this opinion, which does not address them.

Coverage differs. Title VII defines an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year." 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). The text of section 1981 contains no employee-count threshold. The pleading in this case tracks a related line: Coal Bed Services, which was Hall and Hughes' employer, is a defendant on both statutes, while the parent, Pate Holdings, is a defendant only on the section 1981 claims (p. 3 n.1). The opinion does not say why.

Procedure differs. The EEOC states that all of the laws it enforces except the Equal Pay Act require filing a Charge of Discrimination before filing a job discrimination lawsuit. The charge deadline is 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place, extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law prohibiting employment discrimination on the same basis. Section 1981 contains no charge-filing prerequisite in its text.

Timing differs. Section 1981 itself sets no limitations period. The federal catch-all in 28 U.S.C. 1658(a) gives four years for a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990, and in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley and Sons Co., decided May 3, 2004, the Supreme Court held that claims made possible by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, including wrongful discharge claims under the amended section 1981, are governed by that four-year period.

Damages differ. Under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3), the combined total of compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses and nonpecuniary harms plus punitive damages is capped per complaining party at $50,000 for respondents with more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees, $100,000 for more than 100 and fewer than 201, $200,000 for more than 200 and fewer than 501, and $300,000 for more than 500. Backpay and interest on backpay sit outside that cap. 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(2). Section 1981's own text sets no damages ceiling.

None of that tells any particular worker what to do, and the interaction of the two statutes in a real case is fact-specific. At-will employment remains the default rule in most states, and it does not license a firing for a reason federal law forbids; the state-by-state shape of those limits is the subject of guides such as our page on at-will employment exceptions in California.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The panel did not find that Coal Bed Services or Pate Holdings discriminated or retaliated. It found a genuine issue of material fact (p. 3). It did not decide whether Ramsey is a valid comparator, assuming he was not and routing around the question (p. 13). It did not resolve whether anyone actually reported Hall and Hughes for smoking marijuana, applying the summary judgment rule and drawing the inference against the movant instead (p. 14 n.6). And it did not address remedies, damages, or how the two companies' liability might differ, noting only that they had not distinguished themselves from each other on the section 1981 claims in their appellate brief (p. 3 n.1).

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The durable part of this opinion is not the facts. It is the interaction between two doctrines that employers and employees often treat as one. An employer can win the comparator fight and still face a jury. Coal Bed Services persuaded the district court that a heavy equipment operator with more tenure and different daily tasks was not similarly situated in all material respects to two laborers, and the panel assumed that was right. The claim survived anyway, because the mosaic route asks a different question: not whether one specific coworker matches on every material axis, but whether the record as a whole would let a reasonable factfinder infer intentional discrimination. Differential treatment that falls short of a formal comparator can still be a tile in that mosaic when the conduct, the day and the supervisor are the same.

The second point is about the EEOC position statement, and it is the one with the widest practical reach. An employer's response to a charge is an early, low-stakes-feeling document, written before discovery, often by someone who was not on the jobsite. Here it said the test was random. Discovery produced testimony that it was triggered by a report. The panel treated that gap not as a clarification but as a conflict with two possible readings, and at summary judgment the reading that helps the nonmovant is the one that governs. A position statement is evidence, and it locks in a narrative that later testimony has to live with.

Third, documentation asymmetry cuts both ways. The opinion notes the company had written documentation for past reports of drug use involving workers who had not engaged in protected activity, and none for this one. A record-keeping practice that exists most of the time and lapses in the one instance involving employees who recently complained is itself circumstantial evidence. Uniform documentation protects an employer; selective documentation does the opposite.

Finally, the panel's correction of the district court's reliance on unpublished decisions is a reminder that persuasive authority does not carry a published rule's weight, especially when it is used to cut off a claim at the causation stage. The same allocation question, judge or jury, runs through other recent appellate employment rulings we have covered, including the Eighth Circuit's FRSA whistleblower decision.

How This Affects You

For workers in Alabama, Florida and Georgia, this published decision changes the authority a district court in those states must follow when an employer moves for summary judgment on a circumstantial race discrimination or retaliation record. It changes no deadline; the two clocks described above run as they did before. Which statute fits which facts, and which clock has already run, are questions for a licensed attorney and not something a news article can answer.

For employers, the operational takeaways are mundane and cheap: say the same thing to the agency that your witnesses will say in deposition, document the trigger for a drug test the same way every time, and apply reinstatement conditions consistently across a crew. Employers in the circuit also work under state-level screening rules that sit alongside federal anti-discrimination law, which we cover in our guides to background check requirements in Alabama and how Georgia handles employment screening.

For everyone else, the useful discipline is reading appellate outcomes precisely. A reversal of summary judgment restores a dispute; it does not resolve one.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers federal employment law as applied in the Eleventh Circuit, which comprises Alabama, Florida and Georgia, and reflects sources verified on September 11, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• Does a Failed Drug Test Show Up on Your Record?
• Eighth Circuit Vacates FRSA Whistleblower Award
• Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Public Employers Keep CORA Discretion

---

Last updated: 2026-09-11. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-11.