How Changing Explanations Prove Workplace Discrimination And Retaliation
Our wrongful termination attorneys see it all the time. The boss or manager tells an employee they are fired for one reason. Then the employer puts that reason in writing, and suddenly the explanation grows. Something gets changed. Something gets added. Then the race/color discrimination lawsuit arrives, the employer starts worrying about whether its stated reason will hold up in court, and even more reasons appear. It becomes an attempted victory by volume.
Can an employer keep changing the reason for firing an employee? It can offer another explanation. But every new explanation creates another question: If that was really why you were fired, why wasn’t that the reason when they fired you? Under employment law, changing explanations can become powerful evidence of pretext – evidence that the employer’s stated reason is covering up employment discrimination or retaliation.
That question sits at the center of Eddie Stewart’s case. Stewart, an African-American driver for GES Recycling South Carolina LLC, described a workplace filled with racial harassment. He testified about repeated racial slurs, racist cartoons, a “slave driver” comment, and manager Adam Gordon mocking Black employees by pushing out his lower lip. Stewart eventually complained about race discrimination, including telling Gordon that he would “not let a black man move up in this company.” Gordon asked whether Stewart was going to quit. Stewart said no. Gordon suspended him.
Eight days later, GES fired Stewart. According to Stewart, GES told him that “the way you talked to [Gordon]” was something the company could not tolerate. GES later defended the termination as based on broader “belligerent and insubordinate conduct.” In Stewart v. GES Recycling S.C. LLC, No. 24-1523, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24465 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the record presented genuine disputes over whether GES’s stated reason was false or had changed over time. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment on Stewart’s retaliation claim and sent it back for further proceedings.
Legal Takeaways
- An employee may establish pretext by presenting evidence that an employer’s stated reason for termination is false or changed over time. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “different justifications at different times” are themselves probative of pretext.
- An employee claiming retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ultimately must prove that retaliation was a but-for cause of the termination – that the termination would not have occurred without the employer’s retaliatory action.
What Counts As Complaining About Race Discrimination At Work?
Employment law protects an employee from retaliation for complaining about or opposing race discrimination in the workplace. Complaining is straightforward: an employee reports racial discrimination, racial harassment, or other discriminatory treatment. Opposing discrimination is broader. It includes objecting to or challenging conduct that the employee believes is discriminatory. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the employee must establish protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal relationship between the two. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals identified opposition to workplace discrimination as protected activity.
Protected activity is not limited to reporting race discrimination to Human Resources, filing a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC, or filing a racial harassment lawsuit. An employee may engage in protected activity by complaining directly to a boss or manager about discrimination or objecting to discriminatory treatment at work. The law protects opposition to discrimination, not just formal paperwork about discrimination.
Stewart’s complaint shows what that can look like in the real world. He identified the protected class: Black employees. He identified employment discrimination he believed was occurring: Gordon’s failure to provide him crane training. He identified racial harassment: racial slurs, Yarbrough’s “***** slave driver” comment, and the racist cartoon. And Stewart identified the alleged discriminatory motive directly, telling Gordon that he would “not let a black man move up in this company.”
An employer defending a retaliation claim may try to strip the discrimination out of the conversation and characterize the encounter as an employee arguing with a supervisor. GES focused heavily on Stewart’s conduct during the June 13 confrontation. But whatever factual dispute existed over Stewart’s tone and behavior, the subject of his complaints was not ambiguous. Stewart was accusing management of racial discrimination and racial harassment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals treated his opposition to workplace discrimination as protected activity.
Specificity can become powerful evidence when an employer later denies that an employee complained about discrimination at all. “My boss treated me unfairly” does not identify the same problem as “my boss denied me training because I am Black.” Stewart tied his treatment to race, identified specific racial conduct, and directed those accusations to the manager he believed was discriminating against him. An employment discrimination lawyer evaluating a retaliation or wrongful termination claim would want to know those exact details because protected activity is the first link between the discrimination complaint and what the employer did next.
And what GES allegedly did next happened fast. Gordon asked Stewart whether he was going to quit. Stewart said no. Gordon suspended him immediately.
That takes us directly to the next question: was the suspension retaliation?
Practical Tip: When complaining about race discrimination or racial harassment, identify the conduct you believe is discriminatory, connect it to race, record who received the complaint, and preserve the date and your actual words. If your employer later claims you never complained about employment discrimination, contemporaneous evidence can help prove exactly what you opposed and who knew about it.
Best Race Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
Is It Retaliation If I Am Suspended Right After Complaining About Race Discrimination?
Yes, an immediate suspension after an employee complains about race discrimination can be evidence of retaliation. To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981, an employee must show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal relationship between the two. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “close temporal proximity weighs heavily in favor of finding a genuine dispute as to causation.” Timing does not automatically prove retaliation. But when an employer acts immediately after a discrimination complaint, that timing becomes evidence of why the employer acted.
Stewart’s timing could hardly have been closer. During the June 13 meeting, he complained to Gordon about race discrimination and racial harassment. Gordon asked Stewart whether he was going to quit. Stewart said no. Gordon immediately suspended him, told him to leave the premises, and said that he would call Stewart later. The discrimination complaint and the suspension were not separated by weeks or months. According to Stewart’s evidence, one immediately followed the other.
GES had an answer. It maintained that Stewart was disciplined because of how he behaved during the meeting, not because he opposed employment discrimination. GES characterized Stewart’s behavior as “belligerent and insubordinate conduct.” Stewart admitted using profanity and testified that he may have raised his voice. But he disputed the threatening or intimidating behavior GES attributed to him. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Stewart’s testimony, viewed in his favor at summary judgment, established “no worse conduct than using profane language and perhaps raising his voice.”
That factual dispute could not be resolved by simply accepting the employer’s adjectives. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court improperly drew inferences against Stewart when it accepted GES’s characterization of his conduct. Stewart’s account could support a finding that his behavior was “non-intimidating, non-threatening,” while GES presented a materially different account. Those competing versions created a genuine dispute of material fact. An employer cannot turn disputed conduct into an established fact simply by calling it insubordination.
Judge Rushing’s dissent shows exactly how GES would argue the other side. The dissent emphasized Stewart’s admitted profanity and testimony that he may have raised his voice and concluded that the record supported GES’s position that his conduct during the meeting caused the termination. The majority did not hold that Stewart’s version was true. It held that GES’s version was not entitled to be treated as true at summary judgment. When testimony conflicts over what happened in the meeting and reasonable inferences can be drawn for the employee, the judge cannot resolve that factual dispute in the employer’s favor before trial.
Practical Tip: If you are suspended or disciplined soon after complaining about racial discrimination, preserve the date, time, decision-maker, and exact reason the employer gives you for the discipline. That evidence can connect the adverse action to your protected complaint and create a contemporaneous record against which any later explanation can be tested.
Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Can My Employer Give A Different Reason For Firing Me After I Sue For Race Discrimination?
An employer may offer a different or additional explanation for firing an employee after a race discrimination lawsuit is filed—BUT—and this is a big but, changing the explanation can become evidence against the employer. Under employment law, an employee can establish pretext with evidence that the employer’s stated reason is false or changes over time. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that offering “different justifications at different times is, in and of itself, probative of pretext.” An employer does not necessarily win by piling up reasons. Sometimes attempted victory by volume creates evidence of pretext.
That is where Stewart’s retaliation claim became dangerous for GES. Stewart testified that when GES terminated him on June 21, Garcia told him that Gordon “felt threatened” and that “the way you talked to [Gordon]” was something the company could not tolerate. According to Stewart, Garcia also acknowledged that Gordon had “a lot of racial issues going on,” but nevertheless told Stewart that his manner of speaking to Gordon was the problem.
GES’s position in the litigation went further. It maintained that Stewart was terminated for “belligerent and insubordinate conduct,” a characterization encompassing conduct Stewart disputed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals zeroed in on the difference. The majority held that a reasonable jury could find GES “told Stewart one thing – that he was terminated for his use of profanity during his meeting with Gordon – and is now claiming another – that he was terminated for other belligerent and insubordinate conduct during that meeting.”
GES had a serious defense. It argued that these were not different reasons at all. Both explanations concerned Stewart’s behavior during the same June 13 meeting. Judge Rushing agreed in dissent, concluding that GES had “consistently maintained” that Stewart was fired because of his conduct during that meeting and that its later description merely supplied additional detail about the same reason. That is the employer’s best argument: The reason never changed. We just described it more fully.
The majority held that a jury could see something very different. Stewart disputed engaging in the additional threatening or intimidating conduct attributed to him. Based on the conflicting evidence, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could find GES’s asserted reason was false or had changed over time. That was enough to create a genuine dispute over pretext and whether retaliation was a but-for cause of Stewart’s termination.
There is an enormous difference between adding detail and adding a new accusation. When an employer’s later explanation includes misconduct the employee denies committing – and that alleged misconduct was not the reason communicated when the employee was fired – credibility becomes central. The employer can argue that it merely elaborated. The employee can point to the original explanation and ask the question that pretext evidence makes unavoidable: If that was really the reason, why wasn’t it the reason on firing day?
Practical Tip: If your employer does not give you the reason for your termination in writing, promptly send an email or text confirming what you were told, including who fired you, the reason given, and when it was communicated. If the employer later changes or adds reasons for firing you, that contemporaneous message can help establish what the employer actually told you on firing day and provide evidence that the later explanation may be pretext.
Best Workplace Retaliation Law Firm Blogs on Point:
How Do I Find The Best Employment Lawyer For A Race Discrimination And Retaliation Case?
The best employment lawyer for a race discrimination or retaliation case should know how to attack the employer’s story, not simply repeat the employee’s story. A wrongful termination case can turn on details that look small until somebody knows where to push: the exact words used when you complained, who knew about the discrimination complaint, how quickly discipline followed, what reason you were given when you were fired, and whether that reason changed later. Those facts need an attorney who knows how to turn inconsistencies into evidence and evidence into a case that can survive long enough to reach a jury.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated to employee rights. That means our employment lawyers have the resources to take on employers that may have far more money than the individual employee they wrongfully fired. Our attorneys bring substantial trial experience, a history of strong results, and a practice built around representing employees facing discrimination, racial harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Size matters. Experience matters. But so does having a lawyer who understands that losing your job is not just another file – it can turn your finances, family, and future upside down.
If you believe you were wrongfully fired after reporting race discrimination or other employment discrimination, call Spitz for a free initial consultation. Our No Fee Guarantee means you will never pay attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery for you. Let our employment law attorneys listen to what happened, examine whether your employer’s story changed, and determine the best strategy for protecting your rights.
Employment Law FAQs
Pretext is evidence from which a factfinder can conclude that an employer’s stated reason for an adverse employment action is not its true reason. In a race discrimination or retaliation case, evidence that an employer’s explanation is false, inconsistent, or changes over time may support a finding of pretext.
Can An Employer Change The Reason For Firing An Employee?
An employer may give additional or different reasons for firing an employee, but changing explanations can be evidence of pretext in a discrimination or retaliation case. If the employer gives one reason at termination and later relies on a materially different reason, the employee may use that inconsistency as evidence that the stated reason for the termination was not the true reason.
Can Changing Reasons For Firing An Employee Prove Wrongful Termination?
Changing reasons do not automatically prove wrongful termination. But inconsistent termination explanations can support an employee’s claim that the employer’s stated reason is pretext for an unlawful reason, including employment discrimination or retaliation. The original reason and each later explanation should be compared carefully.
Is It Retaliation If An Employer Fires An Employee After A Discrimination Complaint?
Firing an employee after a discrimination complaint can constitute retaliation if the employee engaged in protected activity and the required causal connection exists between that activity and the termination. Close timing between a complaint about employment discrimination and an adverse employment action can be evidence supporting causation, but timing does not automatically establish retaliation.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights, workplace discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination blog provides general information about employment law and is not legal advice for any particular employee, employer, claim, or situation. Race discrimination, racial harassment, employment discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims depend on their specific facts and applicable law, and an employee who believes they were wrongfully fired or subjected to discrimination should consult with a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for advice about their individual circumstances. Whether a Black or African-American employee, or any other employee, has a viable claim cannot be determined from general information in this blog, and no result in any prior case guarantees or predicts a result in another case. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm makes no promises regarding the outcome of any matter, and reading this blog, contacting the firm, or submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship. This blog is a legal advertisement. Choosing the best lawyer or best attorney for an employment law matter is an important decision and should be based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.