A former worker with more than thirty years at a local manufacturing company claims he was forced out of his job after being treated differently than a white coworker accused of similar misconduct. The complaint, filed by James Harper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 3, 2026, names Detroit Diesel Corporation as the defendant.
According to court documents, Harper alleges that he was constructively discharged after being accused of time-related misconduct. He states that another employee, who is white and held a similar position under the same supervisor and policies, faced only a brief suspension for comparable conduct. “A white employee engaged in materially similar conduct under the same supervisor and policies but was retained after only a brief suspension,” the filing reports.
The complaint outlines that Harper had worked for Detroit Diesel Corporation for approximately 33 years and was qualified for his position. During March through June 2024, both Harper and Sean Brown—a white employee in an identical role—were investigated for allegedly leaving the facility without clocking out. Both were long-term employees eligible for retirement and were investigated using badge records and timekeeping data. The document states that both men were subject to discipline for allegedly being paid for time not worked.
However, Harper asserts that while Brown was suspended and allowed to keep his job, he himself was pressured to retire under threat of discharge and loss of pension benefits. “Plaintiff was pressured to retire under threat of discharge and loss of pension benefits,” the complaint says. The company reportedly claimed Brown’s conduct differed due to a medical condition but processed both cases initially as discharge-level offenses.
The lawsuit further alleges that only after Harper accepted retirement did Detroit Diesel Corporation reduce Brown’s discipline from potential termination to suspension. Pension paperwork had been prepared for both employees before any final disciplinary decisions were made.
In addition to claims about disparate discipline, Harper accuses his direct supervisor—identified only as Doug—of engaging in repeated race-based comments via text messaging and other communications throughout their working relationship. These included references to Juneteenth, Martin Luther King Jr., and statements linking Harper’s race to his workplace identity. “Plaintiff’s supervisor regularly engaged in race-based text messaging and commentary towards Plaintiff,” according to the filing.
Harper says these racial comments were unwelcome but he felt compelled to tolerate them in order to preserve his employment. He describes feeling forced into outward participation despite finding the remarks offensive: “Plaintiff felt compelled to tolerate and outwardly participate in such comments to preserve his employment.” The suit contends this created an objectively hostile or abusive work environment based on race.
The legal complaint brings four counts against Detroit Diesel Corporation: race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; hostile work environment under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); race discrimination under ELCRA; and constructive discharge. It argues that “Defendant treated Plaintiff differently than a similarly situated white employee because of race” and claims that “Defendant created conditions that would compel a reasonable person to resign.”
Harper seeks back pay, front pay or reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, as well as a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
The lawsuit is brought by attorney Jeffrey S. Burg from Law Offices Jeffrey S. Burg PLC. The case identification number is 2:26-cv-10734-LJM-EAS.
Source: 226cv10734_James_Harper_v_Detroit_Diesel_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan..pdf
