Three write-ups in six days for an employee never disciplined before, the agency claims
Federal regulators have sued a Wisconsin car dealership, alleging it retaliated against Black employees who took complaints to HR.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the case on August 18, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Rohr-Kenosha Motors Inc., which does business as Kenosha Nissan. The agency alleges the dealership violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on three counts: retaliating against employees who opposed race discrimination, which the filing says resulted in their constructive discharge; firing one employee in retaliation for his complaints; and firing that same employee because of his race.
According to the complaint, the reports began in early 2024. Starting around January or February and continuing through at least April, several Black employees, including the workers the agency refers to as the Aggrieved Individuals, reported race discrimination and retaliation to the dealership's Human Resources department.
The complaint says those employees alleged that a Sales Manager, who was White, compared one Black employee to an animal and assaulted him, that the Sales Manager called Black employees “slow,” “lazy,” and made Black employees work in the back of the office, among other incidents.
The EEOC alleges that between approximately February and April 2024, the General Manager openly stated that he planned to retaliate against the employees who had engaged in protected activity. According to the filing, he told a group of employees that if they went to Human Resources again, he would “make your life a living hell.” On another occasion, the complaint says, he was heard yelling that he was “going back to being Diablo” (the devil), that he was “watching all of your asses,” and that whoever went to Human Resources was “done.”
Within days of some of those statements, the agency alleges, the General Manager announced workplace changes, including new work schedules and more closely regulating who could use office spaces and when. The complaint says he also began writing up employees for minor or fabricated infractions, specifically targeting those who had complained about the Sales Manager. It points to one employee written up three times within six days of complaining to Human Resources, who the filing says had never been disciplined before engaging in protected activity.
Reporting that discipline allegedly prompted further retaliation. The complaint says that in April 2024, one employee told Human Resources the General Manager was disciplining her because of her earlier complaints of racial discrimination. The Sales Manager then began calling her “Ms. HR,” according to the filing, and the General Manager issued further write-ups shortly after.
The EEOC alleges the workplace became intolerable, that the employees reasonably believed they would be terminated, and that they resigned as a result. That is constructive discharge - where a resignation is treated as a firing because the employer made conditions unbearable.
A separate part of the case concerns the employee the agency identifies only as Aggrieved Individual No. 1. The complaint says he spoke with the General Manager in April 2024 to object to some of the harassment and was told to “shut up” and “deal with it,” or words to that effect. On April 15, 2024, according to the filing, the General Manager fired him.
The complaint states he is Black, had recently been promoted from salesperson to manager, and had met the dealership's employment expectations. It says that on the day of the firing, he and the Sales Manager got into an argument at work, and that the dealership initially fired both managers. The Sales Manager, who was White, was rehired the next day, the filing says. Aggrieved Individual No. 1 was not.
The agency alleges the practices were intentional and carried out “with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Aggrieved Individuals.”
The complaint sets out the steps that preceded the lawsuit. It says Charge Nos. 443-2024-02487 and 443-2024-02287 were filed more than thirty days before the action began. On July 31, 2025, the agency issued Letters of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe Title VII had been violated. Conciliation did not produce an agreement acceptable to the Commission, and Notices of Failure of Conciliation were issued on February 27, 2026.
The EEOC is asking the court for permanent injunctions barring race discrimination and retaliation, an order requiring the dealership to put in place policies, practices and programs providing equal employment opportunities regardless of race, backpay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensation for past and future pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses including emotional pain and mental anguish, punitive damages and prejudgment interest. The filing contains no dollar figures; all amounts are to be determined at trial. The agency has demanded a jury trial.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
