A split panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday revived a lawsuit against Coca-Cola Bottling Co., allowing an employee’s claims of racial discrimination and retaliation to proceed. The employee, Alvin Moore, had filed the suit after failing a drug test, raising questions about whether he voluntarily waived his rights when he signed a "last chance" agreement (LCA) with the company.

Disparities in Treatment Highlighted

In a 2-1 decision, the court found that a genuine dispute exists regarding whether Moore, who is Black, waived his claims of race bias and retaliation voluntarily. The court also pointed out significant disparities in how Moore was treated compared to his white colleagues at Coca-Cola Bottling Co., one of the largest bottlers for the soda giant in the United States.

Rejecting a lower court's summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit noted that the factors surrounding Moore’s case "taken as a whole" created enough uncertainty to prevent summary dismissal. The court expressed particular concern over Moore's workplace treatment and the circumstances surrounding his decision to sign the LCA.

Coca-Cola Bottling Race Bias Case : Background and Allegations

Moore worked at Coca-Cola Bottling Co. from 2015 to 2018, holding various positions including forklift operator and backup lab technician. In 2017, after a forklift accident, the company required him to take a drug test, which revealed a small amount of marijuana in his system—below the company’s policy threshold. Despite this, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. negotiated a "second chance" agreement with the union and Moore, subjecting him to 24 months of random drug tests.

Later that year, Moore faced further discipline after being accused of insubordination during a preshift meeting. The union negotiated another agreement, the LCA, which discharged the company from liability related to his employment, according to the court’s decision.

In July 2018, Moore tested positive for marijuana again and was terminated. He then sued the company, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.

Legal Dispute Over the "Last Chance" Agreement

Central to the case is whether Moore voluntarily waived his rights by signing the LCA. Moore contended that his meeting before signing was brief and that the union vice president urged him to sign, stating it was "better to fight with a job than fight without a job."

Since 2016, Moore had been submitting complaints of discrimination to Coca-Cola’s HR department, and by 2017, he was reportedly told to stop contacting them. After signing the LCA, Moore filed a Charge of Employment Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, claiming racial bias in the company’s disciplinary actions.

In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit majority indicated that reasonable jurors could interpret the union vice president's comments as signaling that Moore's discrimination claims would survive the LCA. The court also noted that despite Moore’s associate and bachelor's degrees, his education did not equip him with a relevant legal background to fully understand the implications of the LCA.

Coca-Cola Bottling Race Bias Case : Dissenting Opinion

In her dissent, Judge Alice M. Batchelder argued that Moore had voluntarily signed the LCA and that it was clear and unambiguous. She disagreed with the majority's interpretation, stating that requiring Moore to take a drug test did not constitute an "adverse employment action" that would imply racial discrimination or retaliation.

Batchelder also emphasized that Moore had union representation during the meeting and did not request further clarification or legal assistance before signing the agreement.

Moving Forward

The revived Coca-Cola Bottling race bias case will now proceed to trial, where a jury will determine whether Moore’s waiver was voluntary and if the company treated him unfairly compared to his white colleagues.

Moore’s attorney, Donyetta Bailey, welcomed the Sixth Circuit’s decision, calling it "a clear case of disparate treatment." She emphasized the need for the case to be decided by a jury, not through summary judgment.

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. has yet to comment on the ruling.