Broken camera, one-sided meetings, predetermined outcome: What former driver claims Coca-Cola Consolidated did
Coca-Cola Consolidated's investigation procedures under scrutiny: lawsuit alleges misconduct, evidence withholding, race discrimination in contested termination.
When Mark Sinkler was let go from Coca-Cola Consolidated on February 23, 2024, the company said it was due to a vehicle incident at a church parking lot. Sinkler says the real problem was something else entirely: a pattern of bias, sloppy investigation work, and broken promises about how the company would treat him fairly.
Now, in a lawsuit filed November 25, 2025, the 37-year-old former delivery driver is challenging the decision and raising broader questions about how some major employers handle discipline and investigations.
Sinkler worked for Coca-Cola Consolidated, the nation's largest independent Coca-Cola bottler, for nearly four years. By all accounts in the lawsuit, he was a solid employee. He was promoted to route specialist and assistant supervisor in November 2020 after earning his commercial driver's license. He had a clean safety record. Then, in mid-2023, things changed.
The trouble began in May when the company altered his work schedule in its system without telling him. The result: the system flagged him as tardy despite his arriving on time. A coaching notice followed in early June. Meanwhile, according to the lawsuit, his supervisor, Jody Pieters, arrived late repeatedly but faced no discipline.
A few weeks later, Sinkler took time off for an emergency dental appointment and brought in a doctor's note proving he needed medication that would prevent him from driving. The company responded by issuing him a formal corrective action anyway, according to the lawsuit. Other employees who took similar medical leaves weren't treated this way, Sinkler claims.
By October, frustration had mounted. Sinkler was written up over a customer complaint involving a delivery refusal. According to his account, his manager, Natalie Hill, first told him he had handled the situation correctly. Hours later, that same manager disciplined him for the exact same action. When Sinkler asked for video proof, he got nothing.
Then came February 15, 2024. Sinkler was sent to a church in Columbia, South Carolina to pick up company equipment. The pastor said his truck hit her vehicle. Sinkler said it didn't happen. What followed, according to the lawsuit, was an investigation marked by odd procedural choices: his supervisor met with the pastor without him present, preventing him from telling his side of the story. Management said they had Ring camera footage but later claimed the truck's exterior camera was broken, making it impossible for Sinkler to review what actually happened.
A week later, he was gone.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges race and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, breach of contract, and breach of contract with fraudulent intent. No final determination has been made in the case. But for HR professionals watching from the sidelines, it raises uncomfortable questions about investigation fundamentals: Who decides what evidence matters? Are procedures being applied evenly? And what happens when they aren't?
