Skip to main content

Lary E. Grimes v. Department of the Army, Merit Systems Protection Board Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Veterans Administration

6th CircuitMarch 20, 1986No. 85-1133
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Outcome

Sixth Circuit affirmed district court judgment for the Army, holding that Grimes failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII regarding non-selection for apprenticeship and tractor operator positions.

What This Ruling Means

**Grimes v. Department of the Army (1986)** Lary Grimes, a worker at the Department of the Army, sued his employer claiming he was denied apprenticeship and tractor operator positions because of his race. He also alleged he was wrongfully terminated. Grimes believed these actions violated federal anti-discrimination laws that protect workers from racial discrimination in the workplace. The court ruled against Grimes and sided with the Department of the Army. The judges found that Grimes could not prove his basic case for racial discrimination under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Essentially, the court determined that Grimes did not provide enough evidence to show that race was the reason he was denied the positions or terminated. **What this means for workers:** This case shows how challenging it can be to prove discrimination in court. Workers who believe they've faced racial discrimination must present strong evidence that race was the actual reason for negative employment actions. Simply suspecting discrimination isn't enough – workers need concrete proof that their race influenced their employer's decisions about hiring, promotions, or termination.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.