A recently filed federal lawsuit alleges that a worker was subjected to race and disability discrimination, denied reasonable accommodations, and ultimately terminated in violation of several civil rights laws. The complaint was filed by Antonio Deaner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 16, 2026, naming Honeywell International, LLC as the defendant.
According to the court filing, Deaner is an African American former employee who worked for Honeywell as a Field Service Technician II beginning in July 2022. He claims that throughout his employment he was assigned less favorable work than non-African American colleagues and was excluded from overtime opportunities despite having greater seniority and experience. The complaint states that supervisors Jeffrey Marshall and Scott Wynsma “played favorites in distributing work opportunities, favoring non-African American employees.” Deaner also alleges that he was treated differently regarding scheduling issues and reimbursement matters.
The document details multiple instances where Deaner says he faced unequal treatment due to his race and medical condition. In April 2023, while experiencing chest pain and related symptoms that later led to medical leave, Deaner requested permission to work from home but was denied by supervisor Wynsma. The complaint asserts that other technicians were allowed such flexibility for weather or personal reasons. Deaner’s medical issues included chest pain, trouble breathing, dizziness, and premature ventricular contractions—conditions which he argues constitute a disability under both federal law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
While on medical leave until October 2023, Deaner alleges management discussed his health information openly with other staff members and made comments about seeking his termination. Upon returning to work in October 2023, he claims he was publicly confronted by managers about alleged quality-assurance failures—allegations he disputes—and written up for supposed procedural lapses without being provided updated training materials.
Deaner reports filing multiple grievances through Honeywell’s internal processes. His first grievance in November 2023 accused management of targeting him for termination based on race and disability status. He contends that the company’s investigation into these complaints was inadequate: “Honeywell’s investigation was a sham,” the filing states. Afterward, Deaner says scrutiny of his work intensified.
In early 2024, after another period of approved medical leave due to ongoing symptoms, Deaner describes being pressured by Human Resources representatives Mike Jones and Daniel Rubio to return promptly or risk termination for job abandonment. Upon returning in April 2024, he experienced difficulties including a suspected tampering incident with his work vehicle—a claim noted but not substantiated within the complaint—and lack of access to necessary tools or information needed for safe job performance.
By May 2024, Deaner had filed a second grievance alleging retaliation for his earlier complaints: “Honeywell had retaliated against him…by conducting a sham investigation” and failing to provide proper support upon his return from leave. He further reported unsafe working conditions due to missing access credentials required for on-call duties—a situation not remedied until late June 2024.
The lawsuit recounts continued disciplinary actions against Deaner following these grievances—including written warnings relating to scheduling issues—and asserts that management treated his medical needs as disciplinary problems rather than accommodating them as required by law. Despite submitting formal requests for accommodation supported by medical documentation (such as permission for short breaks during dizzy spells), “Honeywell did not grant any of Deaner’s requested accommodations” nor engage in an interactive process regarding those requests.
In August 2024 while still on leave due to worsening symptoms—including heat stroke suffered after being assigned outdoor-only work—Deaner claims management began pressuring him about returning company equipment earlier than standard practice would dictate. During this period he received a text message containing a racial slur from supervisor Marshall; although it was unsent shortly after delivery via iMessage, Deaner provided a screenshot during subsequent internal investigations.
Despite reporting this incident through both company channels and an integrity hotline in August 2024 (his third formal grievance), the complaint alleges no effective remedial action was taken by Honeywell: “Honeywell ratified and endorsed the conduct described.” Later that year when requesting reinstatement or reassignment due to ongoing health limitations—requests allegedly ignored—Deaner’s employment was terminated at year-end under what Honeywell described as part of a reduction in force. The suit contends this stated reason is pretextual: “it included Deaner…because of [his] race; disabilities; ongoing…requests for accommodation; and discrimination complaints — in other words…viewed [him] as ‘trouble.'”
The legal action brings ten counts under federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race discrimination/retaliation), Section 1981 (race discrimination/retaliation), Americans with Disabilities Act (disability discrimination/failure to accommodate/retaliation), as well as Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (race discrimination/retaliation) and Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (disability discrimination/retaliation). Each count seeks compensation for lost wages, benefits, emotional distress, reputational harm, among other damages.
For relief, Deaner asks the court for reinstatement or front pay if reinstatement is not possible; compensatory damages including lost income; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages where permitted; attorneys’ fees; costs; prejudgment interest; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorney Chris P. Wido of Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm represents Antonio Deaner in this matter under case number 2:26-cv-11254-SDK-PTM.
Source: 226cv11254_Antonio_Deaner_v_Honeywell_International_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
