He Reported Racism at GES. Eight Days Later, He Was Fired.
Eddie Stewart admitted using profanity when he confronted his manager. What remains disputed is whether GES Recycling fired him for how he spoke—or for what he reported. A federal appeals court says that question was resolved too soon.
Employment discriminationTL;DR
- Eddie Stewart said he encountered repeated racial slurs, racist cartoons and discriminatory treatment during roughly four months as a driver at GES Recycling’s South Carolina plant.
- On June 13, 2017, Stewart complained directly to manager Adam Gordon about racism and denied training opportunities. Stewart used repeated profanity during the confrontation and was suspended that shift.
- GES fired him eight days later. Stewart said he was told the company couldn’t tolerate “the way” he spoke to Gordon; GES later described his conduct as belligerent and insubordinate.
- A divided federal appeals court ruled that factual disputes exist over what Stewart did and whether GES’s explanation for firing him was false or changed over time.
- The ruling revives only Stewart’s retaliatory-discharge claim. It does not establish that GES retaliated against him, and it does not decide that Stewart’s account is true.
- His hostile-work-environment and discriminatory-training claims were dismissed as untimely and were not at issue in the appeal.
The remaining case is about a narrow but consequential question: would GES have fired Stewart if his profanity hadn’t accompanied a complaint about racial discrimination?
Transparency notice: This article relies on the published opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and its description of the summary-judgment record. Many workplace events are allegations or disputed accounts. The appellate majority did not find GES liable; it ruled that the evidence must be examined in further proceedings rather than resolved in the company’s favor without a trial.
The Facts
On June 13, 2017, Eddie Stewart told his manager that workers at GES Recycling’s Union County plant were using racial slurs and that Black employees were being denied opportunities. During the same confrontation, Stewart repeatedly called manager Adam Gordon a “motherfucker.” Gordon suspended him for the shift.
Stewart returned the next day and gave management a written statement describing the alleged racial harassment, his complaints about crane-operator training and what he viewed as retaliation against employees who spoke about discrimination. On June 21, GES terminated him.
Those dates aren’t disputed. The reason for the termination is.
GES Recycling South Carolina is one of three U.S. subsidiaries of GESCRAP Group, a Spanish multinational that recycles industrial metal waste. Stewart’s work involved collecting scrap from other sites and hauling it to the Union County plant.
The Workplace Stewart Described
Stewart alleged that foreman Justin Yarbrough repeatedly exposed him to racist language and imagery. His account included Yarbrough saying he didn’t want to look like a “n***** slave driver” while driving Stewart and another Black employee in the bed of a pickup truck; showing employees racist Facebook cartoons; and telling Stewart that a white crane operator had called Black drivers “stupid n*****s.”
Stewart also described Yarbrough comparing an oil spot on his arm to Stewart’s skin and said Yarbrough’s young son used racial slurs at the plant while Yarbrough laughed. Stewart testified that he learned to walk away when Yarbrough approached with racist cartoons.
Former coworker Kenrick Denning supported parts of that account in a declaration made under penalty of perjury. Denning said racial jokes and remarks were prevalent, that Gordon heard such remarks without intervening and that Gordon warned Denning he would be fired if he continued talking about racism. Denning said he eventually resigned because of discriminatory treatment and the company’s failure to stop the comments.
GES produced witnesses who disputed Stewart’s hostile-work-environment and discrimination claims. No trial has determined which workplace account is accurate.
Stewart said he initially remained silent because Gordon had warned him not to associate with two Black employees who complained about discrimination. He interpreted that warning, along with Yarbrough’s prediction that the men would be fired, as a sign that complaining could cost him his job.
From Complaint to Termination
The dispute escalated after Stewart said Gordon mocked two Black employees who greeted him with a fist bump. According to Stewart, Gordon pushed out his lower lip while imitating them. The district court later concluded that a jury could reasonably view the gesture as racially offensive.
Stewart and Gordon then argued about why Stewart had not been trained to operate a crane, which could have qualified him for higher pay. When Gordon called Stewart into his office, Stewart complained about the alleged slurs, Yarbrough’s racist cartoon and what Stewart viewed as barriers to Black employees moving up in the company.
Stewart complained to Gordon about racial discrimination and harassment. He used repeated profanity. Gordon suspended him for the shift.
Stewart met with managers Ander Garcia and Rodolfo Baroja and submitted a written statement describing the alleged racism, lack of training and retaliation.
GES told Stewart he remained suspended and would need to speak with someone coming from Spain.
Garcia and Human Resources Manager Oscar Azkona met with Stewart and terminated him. Stewart received his final pay and surrendered his uniforms.
GES opened and closed an internal review of Yarbrough’s “slave driver” remark and issued him a written warning.
“We understand you had some concerns, but the way you talked to [Gordon] is something this company cannot tolerate; and therefore, we have to terminate you.”
Stewart’s account of what Garcia told him at the June 21 termination meeting, as quoted by the Fourth Circuit
What the Conduct Meant for Stewart
In practical terms, Stewart’s account describes a worker trying to avoid racist material, believing management already knew about racial comments and fearing that a formal complaint would put his employment at risk. When he finally complained, he was suspended during the confrontation and fired eight days later.
The record establishes the immediate employment consequence: Stewart lost his job, received his final pay and returned his uniforms. The opinion does not quantify lost wages, subsequent unemployment or other longer-term financial effects, so those consequences can’t be measured from the supplied record.
His allegations about the workplace itself were never resolved at trial. The hostile-work-environment claim was dismissed because it was filed outside the four-year limitations period, not because a court determined that the alleged racial harassment never happened.
Two Accounts of the Same Confrontation
Stewart admitted using profanity and being “very very upset.” He denied physically threatening Gordon and described Garcia as calming him before he followed instructions to leave.
Gordon’s account was substantially different. He said Stewart yelled, cursed, stood close enough to make him feel threatened and later backed him against a barrier wall and fence. GES characterized the conduct as belligerent and insubordinate and said that—not the discrimination complaint—caused the termination.
| Disputed issue | Stewart’s evidence | GES’s evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Why he was fired | Garcia referred to “the way” Stewart talked to Gordon, which Stewart understood as his use of profanity. | The company later said the reason was broader “belligerent and insubordinate conduct.” |
| Physical intimidation | He denied threatening or trapping Gordon and described an angry but verbal confrontation. | Gordon’s written account said Stewart backed him against a barrier wall and fence. |
| Decision-making record | The timing and allegedly shifting explanation support an inference of retaliation, he argued. | Garcia said Azkona and Baroja made the decision after an investigation. |
| Evidence from decision-makers | Stewart relied on his termination meeting, written complaint and testimony. | The record contained no declarations from Azkona or Baroja, the two people identified as the decision-makers. |
The appellate majority found that the accounts couldn’t be reconciled at summary judgment. That stage allows a judge to end a case without trial only when no material factual dispute requires resolution. The court was therefore required to draw reasonable inferences in Stewart’s favor, not decide which account was more believable.
The appeals court did not decide that Stewart was fired for complaining. It decided that the company’s explanation could not be treated as undisputed.
How GES Handled the Racism Report
Stewart’s written statement identified Yarbrough’s alleged “n***** slave driver” comment, a racist chicken cartoon and the “stupid n*****s” comment reportedly made by another worker. The internal-review documents described by the court addressed only a narrower “slave driver” allegation.
GES notified Yarbrough of that allegation on June 22, the day after Stewart’s termination. Garcia’s declaration said Yarbrough admitted using “slave driver” because he was driving while Stewart and another Black employee sat in the back. GES closed the review that same day, citing Yarbrough’s repentance and history with the company, and limited the consequence to a written warning.
The appellate majority said the record did not support GES’s later assertion that it had investigated all of Stewart’s allegations of racially insensitive comments or that Yarbrough denied using the racial slur. The documents showed only that he was confronted with, and admitted, the narrower “slave driver” wording.
The Evidence Problems Went Beyond the Workplace
The Fourth Circuit criticized both sides’ lawyers for misstating the record. GES repeatedly asserted that Stewart admitted physically trapping Gordon, although the majority said Stewart had made no such admission. Stewart’s lawyers repeatedly claimed Gordon also used profanity during the confrontation, even though the court found no evidence supporting that claim.
The majority also found that GES never clearly and consistently explained what its “belligerent and insubordinate” label covered. At different points, the company invoked a verbal attack on Gordon, an alleged physical confrontation at the barrier wall and Stewart’s interaction with another employee.
Those variations were not themselves the stated basis for reversing the lower court because Stewart had not properly raised that particular issue. They did, however, lead the court to admonish both legal teams to proceed “more honestly and carefully” after the case returned to the district court.
What the Court Actually Decided
Stewart sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal law that protects equal contractual rights and permits employment-retaliation claims. To ultimately win, he must prove that his protected complaint was a “but-for” cause of his termination—meaning the firing would not have happened without the retaliatory motive.
GES offered a non-retaliatory explanation: Stewart was fired for belligerent and insubordinate conduct. Stewart could avoid summary judgment by producing evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that explanation false or pretextual.
The two-judge majority concluded that he had done enough to continue. It identified factual disputes over whether the alleged threatening conduct occurred and whether GES’s explanation shifted from Stewart’s profanity to a broader allegation of intimidation and insubordination.
“Simply put, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff Stewart, the record reflects that GES told Stewart one thing … and is now claiming another.”
Fourth Circuit majority opinion
“There are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether GES’s claim of ‘belligerent and insubordinate conduct’ is false or has changed over time.”
Fourth Circuit majority opinion
The court vacated the judgment for GES and remanded the retaliation claim for further proceedings. Vacating means the earlier judgment on that claim no longer stands. Remanding sends the dispute back to the district court. Neither action is a finding that retaliation occurred, and the ruling does not guarantee a trial.
The court did not revive Stewart’s other claims. His hostile-work-environment and discriminatory-training claims remained dismissed as untimely, and he appealed only the retaliation ruling.
The dissent
Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. would have affirmed judgment for GES. He agreed that the record described prevalent racism, profanity and vulgarity, but concluded that Stewart’s admitted conduct—repeatedly cursing at his supervisor, raising his voice and prompting management intervention—fit the company’s description of belligerence and insubordination.
The dissent also saw no substantial change between saying Stewart was fired for “the way” he talked to Gordon and later calling that conduct belligerent and insubordinate. In the dissent’s view, Stewart had not produced evidence showing that GES’s stated reason was a cover for retaliation.
What Remains Unresolved
The central factual questions remain open: whether Stewart physically threatened Gordon, what Azkona and Baroja understood about the confrontation, what information their investigation considered and whether Stewart’s discrimination complaint was a necessary cause of his termination.
The opinion also leaves Stewart’s “cat’s paw” argument unresolved on the merits. That theory can make an employer responsible when a biased supervisor causes another decision-maker to impose an adverse action. Stewart argued on appeal that Gordon’s alleged retaliatory hostility influenced the termination, but the court declined to consider the theory because his lawyers had not raised it in the district court.
What to Watch
- The federal district court: The case returns to South Carolina for proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.
- GES Recycling: Any further explanation of what its decision-makers reviewed, what conduct they believed occurred and why they selected termination.
- The parties’ evidence: Whether the remaining record permits another pretrial ruling or requires the conflicting accounts to be tested before a jury.
The appellate ruling answers only whether Stewart’s claim should have been terminated at the summary-judgment stage. It leaves the decisive question—whether his racism complaint actually caused his firing—for the proceedings that follow.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
