Onsite Fleet, Llc V. Nissan North America, Inc.

Case Background

On October 13, 2023, OnSite Fleet, LLC filed a civil rights lawsuit against Nissan North America, Inc alleging discrimination and retaliation against employees. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Tennessee Middle (Nashville). The case was assigned to District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr and referred to Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern. [Case number: 3:23cv1071]

Cause

On April 2, 2018, OnSite signed a contract with Nissan to manage the Corporate Vehicle Lease Program (CV Program). This contract, later amended, was known as the Professional Services Agreement. Under this agreement, OnSite provided services such as vehicle ordering, delivery, maintenance, and accident management at several Nissan facilities, including those in Tennessee.

At the time of these events, OnSite operated the CV Program at three facilities in Tennessee: Smyrna, Decherd, and Franklin, along with seven other locations across the U.S. OnSite employed McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson at the Smyrna facility, all of whom were African American and performed well, according to both OnSite and Nissan.

In August 2021, Nissan manager Mike Brown disagreed with OnSite’s staffing decisions and suggested a meeting. OnSite rejected his request, asserting its control over its employees. The following day, OnSite employee Kimberly Warren filed a complaint about McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson, which was unrelated to the CV Program. She accused them of laziness and racial discrimination but the allegations were unfounded. OnSite found no merit in Warren’s claims.

In September 2021, Nissan received an anonymous complaint about the employees but did not inform OnSite until four days later. Nissan then barred McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson from its facilities, claiming inadequate performance. OnSite contested this, asserting that the employees were being unfairly targeted and likely discriminated against.

Despite investigating the allegations and finding them baseless, OnSite continued to employ the four men. Nissan did not provide any substantial evidence to support its decision, nor did it involve OnSite in its investigation. In November 2021, Nissan announced its intent to terminate the CV Program, citing an unrelated issue, and ultimately ended the program in December, resulting in the layoffs of 150 employees, including McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson.

Damages

As a result, OnSite suffered damages, including the loss of approximately $14 million in annual revenue. Nissan’s actions were taken with malice or reckless disregard for OnSite’s employees’ federally protected rights.

OnSite requested the Court to rule in its favor on all claims presented in this Complaint. OnSite sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, pre-and post-judgment interest, and any other relief available under the law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): OnSite Fleet, LLC
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Daniel Caden Crowell | Leslie Goff Sanders | Molli Guinn | Stephen C. Stovall
  • Defendant(s): Nissan North America, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Brigid M. Carpenter | Nelson Suarez | Charles K. Grant

Claims

Count I – Violations of Section 1981

This claim asserts discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 1981. OnSite and Nissan had a contract, the Professional Services Agreement. While performing under this agreement, Nissan discriminated against OnSite’s employees—McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson—based on race by revoking their facility access and forcing OnSite to terminate their employment. OnSite repeatedly objected to Nissan’s actions, stating they were racially motivated. In retaliation for these complaints, Nissan terminated the CV Program.

Count II – Breach of Contract

This claim addressed a breach of contract under Tennessee law. The Professional Services Agreement was an enforceable contract between the parties. The contract was also governed by an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Nissan breached the agreement by revoking the employees’ access and terminating their employment without a reasonable determination of inadequate performance. Nissan also breached the contract by acting based on racial discrimination and retaliating against OnSite for raising concerns about the treatment of those employees.

Count III – Tortious Interference with Employment Relationships

This claim asserted tortious interference with employment relationships under Tennessee law. Nissan knew OnSite had employment relationships with McGlory, Mullins, Battle, and Edmondson. By revoking their access, Nissan intentionally caused the termination of those relationships, based on race and in breach of the Professional Services Agreement. OnSite suffered damages due to Nissan’s interference.

Defense

Nissan raised several defenses in response to OnSite’s Complaint, without admitting responsibility for any claims. First, Nissan argued that OnSite’s claims failed to present valid grounds for relief. Additionally, Nissan contended that some claims were barred due to the statute of limitations. It also claimed OnSite had not taken reasonable steps to reduce its damages, suggesting any damages awarded should be reduced. Nissan asserted that its actions were based on legitimate business reasons, not discrimination. Furthermore, Nissan emphasized its right to exclude individuals from its property, a fundamental property right.

Nissan also maintained that its decision to partially terminate the Agreement was justified under the terms outlined in the Agreement. Nissan argued that OnSite breached the Agreement before any alleged wrongdoing by Nissan, barring OnSite from recovery.

In addition to these defenses, Nissan filed counterclaims against OnSite, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding OnSite’s duty to defend Nissan under the Professional Services Agreement. Nissan also claimed that OnSite breached the Agreement by allowing employees with felony convictions to perform services, contrary to the terms of the contract. As a result of these breaches, Nissan sought damages and further legal relief.

Jury Verdict

On January 22, 2025, the jury found that the evidence did not support OnSite Fleet, LLC’s claim of unlawful retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Specifically, Nissan North America, LLC’s decision to revoke access for Willie Edmondson, Antwan McGlory, Jovan Mullins, and Thomas Battle was not found to be retaliatory.

OnSite also failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Nissan breached the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) in a way that caused harm to OnSite.

Similarly, Nissan did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that OnSite breached the PSA, nor that such a breach caused harm to Nissan.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com