George Wright Jr., who has worked for Honda of America Mfg Inc. since 1998 and rose through the ranks to serve as an assistant manager for the two years preceding the filing of his complaint, alleges that two white supervisors — unit manager Clint Floyd and area manager Scott McKenzie — subjected him to a persistent campaign of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on his race over roughly the past four years. Wright alleges he was passed over for promotion, singled out at meetings, and denied bonuses. He also alleges that a December 2023 placement in an assistant managerial role was merely perfunctory, as he was not properly compensated for the increased responsibilities and duties associated with the position, and that his manager later issued an unjustified, downgraded evaluation that prohibited him from receiving any large bonuses, explicitly communicating this to him. A 2025 evaluation in the repair department, Wright alleges, was likewise issued as a form of race discrimination.
Wright filed a formal complaint with Honda's compliance and ethics department. He alleges the company's response was inadequate, the investigation was perfunctory, and no meaningful corrective action was taken.
Wright's complaint asserts four counts: two under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 for race discrimination and retaliation, and two South Carolina state-law claims for breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. Honda moved to dismiss only the two contract counts, arguing Wright failed to state a claim.
United States District Judge Joseph Dawson III, sitting in the District of South Carolina's Florence Division, adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation — with modifications — and granted the motion as to the contract claims. The court held that Wright's complaint alleged only general assurances and legal conclusions rather than the definite and mandatory promises of specific treatment in specific circumstances that South Carolina law requires to overcome the presumption of at-will employment. The court also declined to consider promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, or unjust enrichment theories Wright raised in briefing, holding that a plaintiff may not amend a pleading through opposition briefs.
Notably, Judge Dawson declined to rely on Honda's employee handbook, disclaimer, or signed acknowledgment form — materials the magistrate had treated as dispositive — finding it unnecessary to resolve whether those documents were properly before the court under Rule 12(b)(6), because the complaint failed to allege an enforceable contract on its face.
Counts III and IV were dismissed with prejudice. The case, docketed as 4:25-cv-11270-JD, proceeds on Wright's two Section 1981 claims. The court's order also noted that Honda has been incorrectly identified in the caption and that the correct defendant name is American Honda Motor Company, Inc.