SHEBOYGAN — A Wisconsin Administrative Law Judge will hear an appeal in June of a former Van Horn Automotive Group employee who alleges the company violated the state’s fair employment law and fired him because of his race.
Zach Norman filed a discrimination complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s Equal Rights Division in August 2022, alleging he received different treatment than white counterparts and the company didn’t afford him the same due process, which ultimately led to his employment termination.
The ERD investigator on the case dismissed the complaint in November 2023, with an initial determination there was no probable cause that Van Horn violated the Fair Employment Law by terminating Norman’s employment because of his race. Portions of the complaint were dismissed because they were untimely.
Norman filed an appeal soon after.
Through its lawyer, Van Horn declined to talk with the Sheboygan Press or give a comment for this story because the case is being litigated. However, the lawyer said Van Horn will “continue to vigorously defend” against Norman’s allegations.
Former Van Horn employee says two incidents during employment made him uncomfortable as a person of color
Norman was rehired by Van Horn in 2018 — with a stint as a sales associate from 2014 to 2016 — and began as a customer service manager. He served as the Business Development and CSI director in his most recent role. He is mixed race, half white and half Black, and was one of the company’s only non-white employees in a management role, according to the initial statement of discrimination obtained by the Sheboygan Press.
It notes two alleged instances that made Norman uncomfortable. One on occasion, a Van Horn executive asked Norman, “So what race are you anyway?” The other happened in fall 2019, when his direct supervisor pitched a training called “White Men as Full Diversity Partners,” described as “white men teaching other white men diversity.”
His supervisor, according to the statement, explained white men were in the best position to teach diversity because they often hold more upper management and executive roles. This instance made Norman, the only person of color in the meeting, uncomfortable.
The statement said Norman was never disciplined and his performance always met or exceeded expectations over the years. Additionally, it said Van Horn continues to employ white managers who are “verbally abusive” to subordinates, unlike Norman.It said the company treats these employees differently than Norman because they are white and he isn’t.
Both parties attempted mediation in fall 2022, which could’ve avoided further investigation and determination of fault, but it was unsuccessful. Norman told the Sheboygan Press it felt like Van Horn offered a “very low” settlement amount compared to his proposition before meditation and wasn’t open to negotiations during the mediation.
“And I was just like, ‘This is ridiculous,’” Norman said.
Apartment building access: Nearly 12 weeks later, wheelchair lift at Sheboygan apartment building could be working again soon
Van Horn denies racial discrimination allegation, says complaint has ‘no merit.’
The investigation process continued, with Van Horn submitting a position statement to Norman’s complaint Feb. 17, 2023, via a lawyer, that requested the complaint be dismissed because it had “no merit.”
It said Norman’s two examples have “alleged racial undertones,” but aren’t direct evidence of discrimination and were time-barred from being considered in the case, arguing they exceed the 300-day limit. It then said Norman couldn’t prove there was indirect evidence of discrimination, by showing he is a member of a protected class, met employer’s expectations, subject to materially adverse employment action and the employer treated similarly positioned employees outside the protected class more favorably.
“Van Horn denies that it discriminated against Mr. Norman (‘Complainant’) in any way, and it specifically denies that it discriminated against him based on his race,” the position statement read.
The position statement said Van Horn terminated Norman’s employment for discriminatory and behavior toward female subordinates in his department, as the company said it is committed to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment.
After Norman returned to the company in 2018, the position statement said he rose to higher roles and became “more arrogant, rude and condescending” toward female staff on his team and created “an atmosphere of fear and intimidation” that was “hidden” from Van Horn leadership.
On different occasions, the position statement said three women in Norman’s department told executive leadership he treated female employees horribly and berated women for taking time off for child care reasons. This “awful work environment” ultimately led to employees leaving the department and asking for internal transfers, it said.
One of the women reported Norman and said she resigned because of him, for receiving similar treatment as the other female employees. She said she was also put on a performance improvement plan in “retaliation” for other employees finding out Norman, who was married, was on a dating app.
The position statement said Norman approached his supervisor about demoting that female employee, replacing her with a male employee and paying him double the salary. It goes on to say Norman admitted to making the inappropriate comments toward the female employees, putting one on a PIP and wanting to replace her with a male counterpart.
Van Horn said the company’s themes of “respect, professionalism and positivity” are explained at employee orientation, reinforced in daily interactions, reiterated in equal opportunity employment, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and sought out in diversity, equity and inclusion trainings. It alleges these behaviors exhibited by Norman did not uphold the company culture or values.
In the position statement, Van Horn said it has a “commitment to a positive work environment and has taken action” when instances of harassment or discrimination were discovered, like the termination of a white male manager a few years ago because of attempts to “proposition” one subordinate female employee and for an innuendo and behavior that made a group of women uncomfortable.
Norman says the company didn’t properly investigate allegations against him.
Norman denies in an April 2023 rebuttal the company’s assertion that he created a “toxic environment,” would “berate my female subordinates” and managed with “fear and intimidation.” He said it couldn’t be “farther from the truth.”
Though used as a catalyst for his termination, Norman denied berating women for taking off for child care reasons.
Norman said a leadership accountability meeting was held where taking excessive time off was discussed. Some supervisors were taking off more time than was acceptable to spend with their kids, which put stress on the female employee who eventually resigned. In the meeting, he shared how constantly missing work can create stress on co-workers and is unfair for female employees without kids who have to take up the extra workload.
With two young children himself, Norman shared how he and his wife share child care responsibilities, the rebuttal said.
“I also never said that people couldn’t miss work because of them having sick kids,” Norman said in the rebuttal. “I said that they couldn’t miss a week at a time without using their PTO and vacation. Again, I understand what it’s like to have kids and the stress and struggle that happens when kids are sick.”
This issue was seemingly resolved after the meeting, with more use of PTO and vacation time for excessive absences and splitting time with significant others for child care.
Norman said in the rebuttal that executive management didn’t conduct a proper investigation before firing him, like speaking with other people in that meeting.
The company’s complaint procedure says an investigation into an employee complaint could include interviews with the person making the complaint, the person whom the complaint was made against, witnesses identified by either party or other individuals the company deems have relevant information.
Norman put the female employee who resigned on a PIP, following a reassessment of lack of leadership skills, which he was transparent about with his supervisor. Norman said she wasn’t put on the plan out of retaliation for the dating app assertion, which he said was a rumor started by a former member of the female employee’s team after they were terminated. “Anyone who truly knows me understands how I live my life and what kinds of moral standards I have,” he said in the rebuttal.
Norman said he supported and empowered the female employee. Employees are put on PIPs when the company wants them to grow and stay, not be replaced or terminated, he said. Norman said managers were given the directive of “Right Person, Right Seat” at the end of 2021 and put her on the PIP to improve her leadership skills. He said he was following the direction of his supervisor.
Norman denied he wanted to replace the female employee, hire a male and pay him twice as much. He also added, “This also differs from what was said to me during my termination.”
Norman said he was told he was being fired because he was “unkind” and had made a comment to the female employee that he didn’t hire her. This was taken out of context, Norman said. He told the female employee, “You’re right I didn’t hire you, but I will still support you like everyone else.”
Norman said this was not a sufficient reason for termination and there was not a proper investigation into the female employee’s allegations against him.
In an additional rebuttal submission, Norman said his supervisor told him he couldn’t make mistakes.
Norman, and several character and witness statements, share examples in the complaint of white employees who have engaged in inappropriate conduct but have not been terminated. Among the list, some are accused of having engaged in intimidation, harassment, yelling and berating co-workers and subordinates. For these, they received punishments like temporary leave, position demotion and department reduction.
“Why couldn’t a black employee make mistakes, but white employees can?” Norman wrote in the rebuttal.
Former colleagues and some current Van Horn employees share statements of support for Norman. One says he was an ‘amazing person and boss.’
Overall, Norman said he “strove to build a winning culture in which all my employees could grow within the company.”
He said he created workplace committees to build camaraderie and teamwork and an anonymous digital suggestion box for employees to voice their concerns. He would discuss concerns he received with management in an effort to resolve them. Norman said he also fought for pay increases for his employees, 90% of whom were women, for more than a year. This was refused three times by his superior, he alleged.
“This was the opposite of the culture of sexism and fear that Van Horn is portraying my department to have had,” Norman said in the rebuttal. “This was a culture of growth and learning, specifically for females.”
More than a dozen individuals — some colleagues, former and current Van Horn employees — shared character and witness statements in support of Norman. General sentiments throughout remarked that he was an “amazing person and boss,” respectful and had positively impacted their lives. Several individuals shared Norman’s firing was a shock and didn’t make sense to them. Another said they hoped the termination was a “racial thing.”
“Whatever reasons there were, just remember Zach is a good, honest person with more integrity than any of them will ever have,” one statement said about his employment termination.
Another noted: “I was very proud to be part of the great team and culture that Zach created at BDC. It felt like a family.”
Sheboygan marina meeting: Community input and boater concerns: Here’s what to know about the first Sheboygan marina meeting
Initial determination dismissed the case, but it’s now being appealed because of lack of substantial evidence.
The Equal Rights Division officer determined Norman didn’t bring forth sufficient evidence to substantiate that he was fired because of his race.
“Although the Complainant argued that there were Caucasian comparators, who harassed subordinates and were not discharged, it does not appear that those individuals singled out employees due to their membership in a protected class, like sex,” the determination said.
Portions in the case that occurred before Oct. 29, 2021, like the conversation about “White Men as Full Diversity Partners,” were dismissed because they exceeded the 300-day statute of limitations to file an allegedly discriminatory act occurred.
Norman said in his appeal he wasn’t confident the ERD investigator considered his second rebuttal that had specific, detailed witness statements that showed white managers received more favorable treatment than he did when allegations were brought against them.
Norman will bring his appeal before an administrative law judge next month. There, he will have the opportunity to present his case.
Contact Alex Garner at 224-374-2332 or agarner@gannett.com. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @alexx_garner.
This article originally appeared on Sheboygan Press: Former Van Horn employee alleges company racially discriminated against him
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
