09-17-2026
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a jury could reasonably find discrimination under a “mosaic of evidence” and absent an equal comparator.
DeMarkus Hall and Eddie Hughes, two Black men, worked as laborer-operators for Coal Bed Services (Coal). They alleged that their supervisors assigned them “dirtier” and more difficult tasks than their White coworkers and did not offer them the same opportunities to develop and advance. They alleged that one specific supervisor referred to them as “y’all” and “them,” while referring to White employees by name, and asked them to perform personal tasks for him outside of their regular job duties.
Hall and Hughes complained to another supervisor about the differential treatment, and the supervisor attributed the conduct to conflicting personalities. Roughly four weeks later, that supervisor was allegedly told that Hall and Hughes had been seen smoking marijuana at work. He directed all employees to take a drug test and, if they refused, he said he would fire them. Hall and Hughes refused and left the jobsite. A White male worker also refused and left the job at the same time. The three men denied using marijuana.
The White worker reached out to the company later that week. In response, the supervisor rehired the White worker on the condition that he agree to a random drug test at some future date. He returned to work without taking a drug test. Hall and Hughes also reached out to the company but were never rehired. Coal paid the White coworker for a full shift on the day of the drug test, but it paid the two plaintiffs for four hours. The company also rehired another White laborer who had failed a drug test eight months earlier.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Hall and Hughes had put forth enough evidence to create a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence, even if they could not point to a direct comparator under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Coal had argued the White employee was not a legally sufficient comparator because he had more experience, a longer job tenure, a different job title, and somewhat different responsibilities. The Eleventh Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that the company racially discriminated against the employees when it fired them and did not consider them for reemployment on the same terms as it did their White coworker.
Takeaway: Courts will look at the overall body of information put forth by plaintiffs to determine whether a reasonable inference of discrimination exists. Employers will benefit from treating all employees consistently with records to support that consistency, including in cases of misconduct. As always, employers should take internal discrimination complaints seriously by conducting thorough investigations and considering all relevant information.