Johnson v. Ford Lawsuit: Sixth Circuit Revives Harassment Claims

The Johnson v. Ford harassment lawsuit is a case brought in 2019 by DeAnna Johnson, a Black production supervisor at Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant in Michigan, who alleged that a fellow supervisor subjected her to months of intertwined racial and sexual harassment and that Ford’s managers ignored her complaints. A federal district court initially dismissed the case, but in 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision and sent the case back for further proceedings, issuing a ruling that has since been cited for how courts should handle harassment that is racial and sexual at the same time.¹

What Johnson Alleged

Johnson worked on the Frame and Engine line at the Dearborn Truck Plant. In August 2018, a white production supervisor named Nicholas Rowan, who had been at the plant since 2008 and was assigned to train and evaluate her, began making comments that were both sexual and racial. According to her complaint, Rowan called her a “chocolate Jolly Rancher,” said she was a “chocolate treat” he wanted to have sex with, referred to her breasts as “black mounds” and “black mountains,” and told her he wanted to add a Black woman to his “collection of women.”²

The conduct escalated. Johnson testified that Rowan sent daily text messages containing pornographic images, including a picture of his erect penis, and photographed her without permission. On November 16, 2018, she said Rowan reached down her blouse and grabbed her breast, claiming his hand “slipped.”³ Johnson also alleged Rowan withheld roughly 60% of the training she needed as a process coach, specifically payroll duties, because she refused to send him sexual photos. She eventually suffered a stress-induced collapse at work and was taken to a hospital.

How Ford Responded to Her Complaints

Johnson said she reported Rowan’s conduct daily starting in August 2018 to Senior Process Coach Richard Mahoney, showing him the explicit texts and images. According to her lawsuit, Mahoney told her she should “just f—k” Rowan and get it over with. Team Manager William Markavich allegedly told her he “didn’t give a f—k.” Ford did not open an HR investigation until November 25, 2018, after Johnson reported the behavior to Crew Operations Manager LaDawn Clemons. Rowan was suspended and then fired on December 21, 2018.³

Johnson filed suit against Ford in 2019, bringing claims of racial harassment and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.⁴

Why the District Court Dismissed the Case

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing the harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to sustain Johnson’s claims. The district court agreed. Two rulings drove the dismissal. The court struck a key paragraph of Johnson’s post-deposition declaration under the “sham affidavit” doctrine, which lets courts disregard an affidavit that flatly contradicts a party’s earlier deposition testimony. The court then evaluated the racial and sexual aspects of the harassment separately, focusing on the single most explicitly racial text rather than the full pattern, and concluded the behavior was “isolated or sporadic.”³

How the Sixth Circuit Revived the Case

On September 2, 2021, the Sixth Circuit reversed. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 13 F.4th 493 (6th Cir. 2021), identified two errors below.¹

Sham Affidavit Doctrine Misapplied

The appeals court held that the district court abused its discretion by striking paragraph 20 of Johnson’s declaration, which described her reporting race-related texts and comments to Mahoney. Nothing in that paragraph actually contradicted Johnson’s deposition, because she had never been directly asked whether she reported the racial harassment to Mahoney. Filling a gap in the record is not the same as contradicting prior sworn testimony.³

Intertwined Harassment Must Be Evaluated Together

The more consequential ruling was on the merits. The Sixth Circuit held that the lower court was wrong to separate the racial and sexual components of Rowan’s conduct. When harassment is “intertwined,” the court said, it cannot be “parsed out” and evaluated in isolation. Rowan’s daily sexualized comments specifically invoked Johnson’s race, meaning they were racially motivated harassment delivered through a sexual vehicle rather than purely sexual remarks with race as incidental detail. Citing Jackson v. Quanex Corp., the court held that conduct contributes to a hostile work environment if it “would not have occurred but for” the plaintiff’s race, even where an individual act does not look exclusively racial on its face.³

Viewed as a whole, four months of daily harassment that physically humiliated Johnson and interfered with her training and job duties went well beyond “simple teasing.” The court reversed summary judgment and remanded the case.¹

Where the Case Stands

Back in the district court, Judge Gershwin A. Drain granted Ford’s motion for reconsideration on a narrower point in September 2023, clarifying that Johnson could not hold Ford liable for Rowan’s conduct as a coworker without proving actual or constructive notice. The court held that evidence of Rowan punching items in the workplace did not, by itself, put Ford on notice of sexual or racial harassment, though that evidence remained admissible to show Johnson’s subjective perception of a hostile environment.⁵

The case returned to the Sixth Circuit a second time as No. 24-1550. Oral argument took place on February 18, 2025, and the last known filing is dated April 9, 2025. As of early 2026, no published decision from that second appeal has been identified, and no settlement or trial outcome is publicly recorded.⁶

Why the 2021 Ruling Matters

The Sixth Circuit’s 2021 decision is cited for the principle that persistent racial and sexual harassment, when intertwined, must be evaluated together under the totality of the circumstances rather than split into discrete categories that each fail on their own. Legal commentary has treated the ruling as clarifying what counts as “severe and pervasive” harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and as reinforcing that employers must investigate complaints promptly.⁷ The opinion also narrowed how the sham affidavit doctrine can be used, drawing a line between a declaration that fills gaps left by incomplete deposition questioning and one that contradicts prior sworn testimony.

1
vLex. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 13 F.4th 493
2
WDIV ClickOnDetroit. Ford Employee Sues Company for Sexual, Racial Harassment at Dearborn Plant
3
FindLaw. Johnson v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2032
4
Detroit News. Ford Sued for Sexual, Racial Harassment at Dearborn Truck Plant
5
Justia. Johnson v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:19-cv-10167
6
CourtListener. DeAnna Johnson v. Ford Motor Company, No. 24-1550
7
CaseMine. Sixth Circuit Establishes Stringent Standards for Racial Harassment Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981