Allegations of pay disparities and unequal treatment between American and Korean managers at a major manufacturing facility have led to a federal lawsuit that could affect employment practices across the company. The suit claims that American employees with similar roles and responsibilities are paid significantly less than their Korean counterparts, raising questions about workplace equity and compliance with federal civil rights laws.
The complaint was filed by John Brueshaber, Desmond Salmon, and Russell Bratcher on March 19, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against SK Battery America, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating in Commerce, Georgia.
According to the filing, the plaintiffs—each holding supervisory or management positions at SK Battery America’s Commerce facility—allege intentional discrimination based on race and Korean ethnic ancestry. They assert that these actions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. The plaintiffs state that “Korean managers of Korean ethnic ancestry occupy a disproportionate share of high-compensation managerial positions,” despite performing “substantially similar managerial functions” as American employees.
The complaint details how compensation levels are determined by centralized executive management rather than individual supervisors. It claims that both Korean and American managers operate within the same grade band system, report through the same chain of command, are evaluated under identical performance metrics, and are subject to the same centralized compensation approval authority. Despite this structure, plaintiffs allege that “Korean managers…receive substantially higher base salaries and supplemental compensation.”
Specific examples cited include instances where lower-level Korean workers supervised by the plaintiffs receive base salaries exceeding those of their direct supervisors by amounts ranging from $80,000 to more than $150,000 annually. The suit further alleges that additional forms of remuneration—such as company-provided housing, vehicle allowances, tax equalization payments, guaranteed bonuses, and other financial benefits—are systematically provided to Korean employees but denied to American employees performing comparable work.
The plaintiffs argue these disparities cannot be explained by job function, tenure, performance qualifications or legitimate expatriate assignment status. They claim: “Upon information and belief, compensation disparities were based on Korean ancestry rather than job function…or any legitimate expatriate assignment or temporary relocation status.”
Beyond pay differences, the complaint also alleges retaliation against Brueshaber and Salmon after they raised concerns about discriminatory practices in writing to executive leadership around December 24, 2025. Within weeks of their complaints, both men reportedly experienced exclusion from management meetings and communications as well as removal from supervisory authority—a response plaintiffs say would dissuade any reasonable employee from opposing discriminatory practices.
The lawsuit outlines several counts under federal law: race and ethnicity discrimination in compensation; discrimination in terms and conditions of employment; discrimination in job assignments; pattern or practice of race/ethnicity discrimination; and retaliation for protected activity. Plaintiffs claim they have suffered economic losses as well as emotional distress due to these alleged violations.
In addition to seeking compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional harm, the plaintiffs request punitive damages against SK Battery America for what they describe as willful conduct carried out with reckless indifference to their rights. They also seek injunctive relief requiring changes to company policies or practices deemed discriminatory by the court.
The complaint notes that charges have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) related to these issues but clarifies that administrative exhaustion is not required under Section 1981. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their complaint should they receive Notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
While this initial filing does not formally seek class certification at this stage, it reserves such rights pending further discovery. The document asserts that “Defendant’s discriminatory compensation practices are systemic” across departments at its Commerce facility—a claim which could lead to broader implications if class action status is pursued.
Legal representation for Brueshaber, Salmon, and Bratcher is provided by Larry A. Pankey of Pankey & Horlock LLC in Atlanta (Georgia Bar No. 560725). The case is identified as Civil Action File No. 1:26-cv-01516-JPB-LRS.
Source: 126cv01516_John_Brueshaber_v_SK_Battery_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
