Hadley v. Kiswire Pine Bluff Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KERRY HADLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00269-BSM
KISWIRE PINE BLUFF, INC. 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 11] is granted on plaintiff’s race
discrimination claims based on pay disparity and denied on his claims based on disparate
disciplinary treatment.
I. BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts as set forth in plaintiff’s response to defendant’s statement of
undisputed material facts (SUMF), Doc. No. 31, are as follows.
Kerry Hadley is a black man who has been employed by Kisswire since 1993. SUMF
¶¶ 12 and 14. In January 2021, Hadley became a Health Safety and Environmental (HSE)
Manager tasked with health and safety. Id. ¶ 59. Terrino Thomas was the environmental
specialist overseeing environmental regulatory compliance and chemical exposure, including
lead. 	Id. ¶¶ 56–57. Hadley received periodic raises, however, his pay was not increased
when he received this assignment. Id. ¶¶ 21–23, 60–61, and 117. Although the position of
HSE Manager required the employee to have a bachelors degree or five years of HSE
experience in a manufacturing environment; familiarity with applicable health, safety, and
environmental laws; and excellent knowledge and ability to manage compliance programs,
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 6

Hadley did not have any of those qualifications at the time he was given the position. Id. ¶¶
65–67. Hadley, however, received training after accepting the role. Id. ¶ 68. In May 2022,
Thomas left Kiswire and Hadley absorbed his duties such as ensuring that employees’ lead
exposure was within permissible limits. Id. ¶¶ 57 and 70.
In the summer of 2022, an employee filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) after his lead levels were found to be high. SUMF ¶¶
75 and 78. In response, Kiswire called for an evaluation and improvement of its
environmental safety program. Id. ¶ 80. Although Hadley took steps to implement changes
in the environmental safety program, in November 2022, testing still showed higher than
permissible lead levels. Id. ¶¶ 85–86. 	OSHA conducted an inspection of Kiswire in
December 	2022 	and 	found 	seven 	serious 	violations, 	including 	employees’ 	lead
concentrations being high. Id. ¶¶ 88–90. 	Some of the violations existed before Hadley
became the HSE manager. 	Id. ¶ 94 	Hadley was transferred to the role of production
scheduler and George Mosley was hired as HSE Manager. Id. ¶¶ 108–113 and 115–116.
Hadley is suing for race discrimination and Kiswire is moving for summary judgment.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986). Once the moving party
demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the non-moving party may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings. Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336,
2
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 6

340 (8th Cir. 2011). 	Instead, the non-moving party must produce admissible evidence
demonstrating a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Id. All reasonable inferences must
be drawn in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Holland v. Sam’s Club, 487
F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir. 2007). 	The evidence is not weighed, and no credibility
determinations are made. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 750 (8th Cir. 2008).
III. DISCUSSION
Kiswire’s motion for summary judgment is granted on Hadley’s pay disparity claim
and denied on his disparate treatment claim.
Hadley does not have direct evidence of race discrimination, so he is attempting to
show that discrimination can be inferred by Kiswire’s actions. See Harris v. Hays, 452 F.3d
714, 717–18 (8th Cir. 2006); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).
This requires Hadley to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. If he does this,
the burden shifts to Kiswire to provide legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for each of its
decisions. 	Id. 	If Kiswire meets this burden, the burden shifts back to Hadley to show that
the reasons provided by Kiswire are merely pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804.
A. 	Pay Disparity
Summary judgment is granted on Hadley’s pay disparity claim. To create an inference
of discrimination, Hadley must show that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) met
Kiswire’s expectations; (3) suffered adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances
give rise to an inference of discrimination. Yang v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., 79 F.4th 949, 964
(8th Cir. 2023). 	Hadley is a member of a protected class and it is assumed that he met
3
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 6

Kiswire’s expectations although the parties presented no argument on this point. An adverse
employment action is one that produces an employment disadvantage and Hadley argues that
being paid less than white men who held the HSE position is an employment disadvantage.
See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 601 U.S. 346, 359 (2024); Smith v. URS Corp., 803
F.3d 964, 970 (8th Cir. 2015). To meet the fourth element, Hadley argues that discrimination
can be inferred by the fact that white men, Mike Barrett and George Mosley, were paid more
than he was for doing the same work. See Pl.’s Br. Supp. Opp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.
(“Hadley Br.”) at 17.
Hadley’s problem, however, is that he has not shown that he is similarly situated to
either Mosley or Barrett. Williams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 963 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir.
2020) (comparator must be similarly situated in all relevant respects). Hadley admits that
Mosley was more highly educated than he was and had more experience in environmental
safety based on experience at another company. SUMF ¶¶ 110–112; Fields v. Shelter Mut.
Ins. Co., 520 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2008) (employees hired externally and from a
competitor were not similarly situated to plaintiff who was promoted through the ranks of
defendant company). Further, Hadley admits that Barrett was in the HSE manager position
from December 2013 to February 2020 and then served as the HSE Manager on an interim
basis. Id. ¶ 42. When Hadley accepted the position, he had no health and safety background
and he had no environmental background. Id. ¶ 66. Barrett also had prior experience with
hazardous waste disposal, local, state, and federal regulations of environmental compliance,
and safety management. Id. ¶ 46; Stone v. McGraw Hill Fin., Inc., 856 F.3d 1168, 1174 (8th
4
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 6

Cir. 2017); Fields v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 520 F.3d 859, 865 (8th Cir. 2008) (where
comparator had more experience in the industry and had been with the company longer he
was not similarly situated). For these reasons, Hadley was not similarly situated to these
comparators and has failed to established a prima facie case of discrimination.
B. 	Manager Transfer
Summary judgment is denied on Hadley’s discrimination claim based on his removal
from the HSE Manager position. Hadley argues that he was removed from the HSE Manager
position as a form of punishment for the lead exposure incident involving the employee who
complained to OSHA. See Hadley Br. at 24. Hadley must establish a prima facie case by
showing (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified to perform his job; (3)
he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) non-members of his class were treated
differently. 	Jones v. Reliant Energy-ARKLA, 336 F.3d 689, 691 (8th Cir. 2003). Hadley is
a member of a protected group and he suffered an adverse employment action when he was
removed from his position as HSE Manager. Davis v. City of Sioux City, 115 F.3d 1365,
1369 (8th Cir. 1997) (job transfer was adverse action, despite salary increase, when new job
lacked supervisory status, had fewer opportunities for salary increases, and offered little
chance for advancement). 	Despite Kiswire giving Hadley the HSE Manager position, it
argues that he was not qualified for it. 	Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 8, 12, 20, and 25.
Because of this, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Hadley’s qualifications.
Kiswire contends that Hadley was not disciplined based on the lead exposure incident,
rather it was Hadley’s inability to properly respond to the events following the lead exposure
5
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 6

incident that made Kiswire move him to a different position, which is a legitimate non-
discriminatory reason. 	Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 13–14, Doc. No. 12; Lidge-Myrtil v.
Deere & Co., 857 F. Supp. 666, 671 (W.D. Mo. 1994), aff'd, 49 F.3d 1308 (8th Cir. 1995).
While not entirely clear, it seems Hadley claims this is pretext because Patrick Mayfield, the
person who supposedly put the employee in the plater department without proper notice,
leading to the high lead levels, was not disciplined, and was even promoted. Hadley Br. at
24. This is enough to create a factual issue for a jury to resolve.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Kiswire’s motion for summary judgment is granted on Hadley’s
pay disparity claim and denied on his disparate disciplinary treatment claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Case 4:24-cv-00269-BSM Document 41 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 6