Case Background
Quentin Watts, an African American man, worked as a millwright for J&L Industrial Services, LLC in the Southern District of Alabama. He filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on March 10, 2023, and received his Right to Sue letter on November 20, 2023. Watts filed his federal complaint on February 15, 2024, bringing claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). J&L filed its Answer on April 3, 2024, admitting only limited facts and denying the core allegations. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned its verdict on May 14, 2025, before United States Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray in the Southern District of Alabama. The Court entered judgment on July 8, 2025.
Cause
Watts began working for J&L in May 2022. He alleged that within five days of his hire, a coworker, Robert Macks, directed a racial slur at him on a job site in Cedar Springs, Georgia. Watts claimed he reported the incident to his supervisor, and after the company did not fire Macks, he and two coworkers traveled back to report the matter in person to company management. Watts alleged that J&L then transferred him out of his millwright role into a transportation shop at reduced pay, though J&L's Answer stated that Watts was also assigned to other millwright jobs during that period. J&L terminated Watts' employment in February 2023, citing "reduction of force" and "job task complete" as the reasons. J&L's Answer denied that these actions were discriminatory or retaliatory and asserted the reasons given for the reassignment and termination were legitimate and nondiscriminatory.
Injury
Watts claimed he suffered lost wages and benefits from his reassignment to lower-paying work, along with emotional pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life stemming from the alleged discrimination, retaliation, and termination.
Damages Sought
Watts asked the Court to declare J&L's conduct unlawful, enjoin the company from continuing such conduct, and award him compensatory and punitive damages, including back pay, in an amount to be determined by the Court. He also sought costs, interest, attorneys' fees, and further equitable relief.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Quentin Watts
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Teri Ryder Mastando | Eric J. Artrip
Defendant: J&L Industrial Services, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant: H. William Wasden | Emma P. Goodloe | Michael David Strasavich
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Watts alleged that Macks called him a racial slur during his first week of work while other coworkers were present. He alleged that his supervisor initially promised to fire Macks but did not follow through, prompting Watts and two coworkers to report the incident directly to company ownership. Watts alleged that soon afterward, and without warning, J&L transferred him to the transportation shop, where his pay dropped substantially. He further alleged that a project manager told another employee that Watts would never work as a millwright again for as long as that manager remained with the company. Watts alleged that J&L terminated his employment in February 2023 for reasons he claimed were false and inconsistent, and he stated that he never received any write-ups or formal discipline throughout his employment, a point J&L's Answer admitted.
Defense
J&L's Answer admitted only limited facts: that Watts was hired as a millwright in May 2022, that he was assigned to the Cedar Springs, Georgia job, that he was later transferred to the transportation shop while also being assigned to other millwright jobs, that he received a Termination Authorization on February 2, 2023 citing reduction of force and job task completion, and that he never received formal write-ups or disciplinary action. J&L denied the remaining factual allegations, including the specifics of the slur incident and the events that followed, and demanded strict proof of those allegations. J&L raised twenty-three affirmative defenses. Among them, the company argued that all personnel actions taken toward Watts were made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory, and nonpretextual reasons, and that those actions would have occurred regardless of Watts' race. J&L pleaded a mixed-motive defense, arguing that even if race played some part in its decisions, the same decisions would have followed anyway for legitimate reasons. The company also argued that Watts could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, could not show he engaged in protected activity, and could not establish a causal connection between any protected activity and the actions taken against him. J&L further argued that Watts failed to mitigate his damages, that he was an at-will employee, and that punitive damages were unwarranted because none of its actions were taken maliciously or with reckless disregard for his rights.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdict on May 14, 2025, following trial before United States Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray in the Southern District of Alabama. The jury completed its findings on a Revised Verdict Form.
On the discrimination claim tied to Watts' reassignment, the jury found that J&L reassigned Watts and did so because of his race. On the related retaliation claim, the jury found that the reassignment constituted an adverse employment action and that J&L reassigned Watts because of his protected activity.
On the discrimination claim tied to Watts' termination, the jury found that Watts' race was a motivating factor in J&L's decision to terminate his employment. The jury also found that J&L failed to prove it would have terminated Watts regardless of his race. On the related retaliation claim, the jury found that J&L terminated Watts because of his protected activity.
Having found in Watts' favor on every discrimination and retaliation claim, the jury proceeded to determine damages. The jury awarded Watts $39,240 to compensate for lost wages and benefits caused by his reassignment. It awarded an additional $200,000 to compensate for emotional pain and mental anguish caused by his reassignment and termination. The jury also found that punitive damages should be assessed against J&L and set that amount at $400,000.
The Court entered judgment on July 8, 2025, incorporating the jury's award along with two additional figures the Court calculated itself: $80,397 in back pay, which included prejudgment interest, and $258,438 in front pay. Combined with the jury's award, the total judgment against J&L reached $978,075. The Court denied Watts' remaining requests for equitable relief, which had sought an order requiring J&L to train its employees and to issue Watts a letter of recommendation.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
