He was told he needed locks to train - but his white coworker started without them
A production worker at a Stellantis engine plant in Michigan is suing over what he calls a two-track system.
The worker, who is African American, filed a federal complaint on October 8, 2026, against FCA US LLC - the Stellantis subsidiary that operates the Dundee Engine Plant in Monroe County, Michigan. He alleges race and color discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Section 1981, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The worker started with FCA/Chrysler in approximately July 2018 at the Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois before transferring to Dundee in approximately September 2019. The trouble, according to his filing, traces back to discipline he disputes and escalated into what he describes as a pattern drawn along racial lines.
Same class, different access
In March 2026, the worker sought training in Leak Test - a production area at the plant - and repeatedly asked why he was being moved away while others got the opportunity. He also reported that a separate white employee with lower seniority was already working in Leak Test while he was moved from the area.
According to the complaint, a supervisor then approached a white employee about moving into Tear Down and Leak Test. That employee was moved into Leak Test and allowed to begin training there before attending a lockout/tagout safety class - a course that teaches workers how to safely shut down equipment - that the worker, the white employee, and a third colleague later attended together.
None of the three received their physical locks at that training, the complaint alleges.
Here is where the sequence gets pointed. After the shared class, the worker says he was told he could not train in Leak Test because he did not have the required locks. But the white employee had already been training in Leak Test before attending that same class - and before receiving locks. The prerequisite, the worker alleges, was only enforced against him.
He documented the discrepancy. In a March 25, 2026 communication cited in the complaint, he stated he could not train because he did not have locks, that the white employee had been in Leak Test without locks, that he personally watched management provide that employee with locks, and that he was told his own locks still had not arrived.
An investigation that raised more questions
After the worker raised discrimination complaints internally, FCA launched an equal employment opportunity investigation in approximately April 2026. The complaint alleges the worker identified a union representative as a material witness - someone willing and available to speak about the events.
According to the filing, HR personnel told both the worker and the witness that the witness was not needed and directed her to return to the floor.
Internal FCA communications from April 7, 2026 tell a different story, the complaint alleges. Those communications first described the witness as participating in the investigation - and therefore unable to represent certain employees during the process. Then, according to the filing, an FCA employee stated the witness was refusing to take part.
The worker alleges this conflict between what HR told him and what was recorded internally is relevant to whether the investigation was adequate and credible.
The device rule
The complaint also targets how FCA enforced its electronic-device rules. In October 2025, a supervisor accused the worker of cellphone-related misconduct and hostility, and FCA imposed a 30-day unpaid suspension. The worker disputes the supervisor's account, alleging the supervisor yelled at him and exaggerated or mischaracterized his response. He identifies a white employee accused of comparable cellphone or electronic-device conduct who allegedly did not receive comparable discipline.
Then in July 2026, another disciplinary report alleged the worker violated a workplace rule related to an earbud or electronic device, again proposing a 30-day suspension. The worker disputes he was wearing an earbud. According to the complaint, he was checking his clothing or pockets after a break because he believed he had nearly lost his wedding ring.
A coworker's written statement from September 15, 2026, cited in the complaint, describes the worker as having a Bluetooth earbud in his hand before the supervisor approached - not in his ear. A union steward stated, according to the filing, that the supervisor originally gave the worker a warning but changed her decision and placed the worker on notice based on his response.
During the same incident, the complaint alleges, a white employee and other workers in the area had their cellphones out and on their persons. The worker was the only one approached.
Retaliation claim
The worker filed an EEOC charge on March 12, 2026, checking color discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC issued its determination and notice of rights on July 10, 2026. The complaint alleges that adverse treatment continued after FCA became aware of his protected activity, pointing to who knew about his complaints, the timing of the discipline, inconsistent rule enforcement, and shifting explanations as evidence.
The complaint seeks back pay, lost benefits and overtime, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, correction or expungement of disciplinary records, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs.
For HR teams, the case puts a practical question front and centre: when a workplace prerequisite is applied to one employee but waived for another, the paper trail either supports the distinction or it does not. This complaint leans heavily on records FCA itself would hold - training logs, lock issuance dates, assignment sheets - which means the employer's own documentation may become the most important evidence in the case.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the claims.
