Earlier this month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer in Wannamaker-Amos v. Purem Novi Inc., a case involving allegations of race and sex discrimination under Title VII and race discrimination under Section 1981.This decision highlights the importance for employers to adhere to their stated disciplinary policies. 

The plaintiff in the case was a Black female quality engineer with more than 30 years of experience. She filed claims against her employer, alleging unlawful termination based on race and sex discrimination. The plaintiff worked in an environment where all other employees in her department were white, and the vast majority were men. 

According to the evidence presented, her supervisor continuously sought her termination over several years despite praise for her performance from all of her other managers and peers. The supervisor allegedly treated the plaintiff unfairly, holding her to higher standards than her white, male colleagues, which included a comment by him that "you know how these Black people are," which he later attempted to recast as a remark about "Southern people." The supervisor eventually instructed human resources to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. 

Employer’s Failure to Follow Its Own Policies

The employer’s progressive discipline policy was another critical point of contention. The policy required steps such as verbal coaching and written warnings before termination, except in cases of "serious misconduct" involving intentional or egregious actions. However, the company bypassed these procedures entirely when terminating the plaintiff, a request that was explicitly made by her supervisor. 

A Case for Discrimination

The Fourth Circuit’s analysis focused on whether the plaintiff was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations, something the company disputed. The defendant argued to the court that her termination stemmed from performance issues, including a failure to respond to a customer complaint. However, the court noted substantial evidence suggesting pretext, including:

• Consistent Positive Evaluations: She received high praise from supervisors and peers, except for the supervisor who allegedly made the discriminatory comment.
   
• Shifting Justifications: The company changed its explanation for the termination and added and removed its justifications as the litigation continued, first citing financial harm and multiple performance issues, then focusing solely on a customer email incident.
   
• Lack of Evidence for Allegations: The defendant’s corporate representative admitted that several of the supervisor’s claims were unsubstantiated and had no written documentation to support them.

Practical Implications for Employers

The Fourth Circuit’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to internal disciplinary policies and ensuring consistency in employment decisions. The employer’s failure to follow its progressive discipline policy — bypassing required steps like verbal coaching and warnings — weakened its ability to defend its decision.

Shifting explanations for adverse actions further weakened the company’s defense. The court noted that inconsistent justifications for the employment action and reliance on testimony from a supervisor accused of bias raised doubts about the true motives behind the decision.

Human resources managers should ensure disciplinary policies are applied fairly and backed by objective, written evidence. Clear documentation, consistent enforcement, and adherence to established protocols are key to reducing legal risks and fostering a culture of accountability.

You can subscribe to our latest alerts and insights here.