The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that allows a class action racial discrimination lawsuit against G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. to proceed in federal court rather than arbitration. The decision, filed Feb. 4, was issued in *Robert Barnes v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.* (6th Cir. 2026).
Robert Barnes worked security at Detroit's Renaissance Center for more than three decades before his termination. The Renaissance Center, built by Ford Motor Company and completed in 1981, has become a cultural icon synonymous with Detroit. The 5.5 million-square-foot complex comprises seven interconnected glass towers adjacent to the Detroit River and houses restaurants, shops, hotels, banks, theaters and foreign consulates.
Following Barnes' termination, he and former colleagues filed a class action lawsuit alleging they faced racial discrimination on the job. The lawsuit represents multiple security workers who claim they experienced discriminatory treatment while employed at the Renaissance Center facility.
G4S Secure Solutions, one of the world's largest security companies, moved to compel arbitration in response to the discrimination claims. The company sought to force the dispute into private arbitration rather than allowing it to proceed as a class action in federal court. Such motions are common in employment disputes, as companies often prefer the private arbitration process over public litigation.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied G4S's motion to compel arbitration. The district court based its denial on an exclusion clause contained within the arbitration agreement between the parties. Exclusion clauses typically carve out certain types of disputes from mandatory arbitration requirements, allowing them to proceed in traditional litigation.
G4S appealed the district court's decision to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the arbitration agreement should be enforced and the case moved to private arbitration. The security company likely viewed arbitration as a more favorable forum for resolving the discrimination claims, as arbitration proceedings are typically faster, less expensive, and conducted away from public scrutiny.
The Sixth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Boggs, Readler, and Davis, reviewed the district court's interpretation of the arbitration agreement. Circuit Judge Readler authored the opinion for the three-judge panel.
In affirming the district court's decision, the Sixth Circuit found no error in the lower court's analysis of the exclusion clause. The appeals court agreed that the arbitration agreement's language carved out the type of discrimination claims brought by Barnes and his colleagues, making arbitration inappropriate for this particular dispute.
"Seeing no error in that decision, we affirm," the court wrote, upholding the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration.
The ruling represents a victory for Barnes and the other plaintiffs, as it allows their class action to proceed in federal court where such cases typically receive more public attention and may result in broader remedies for affected workers. Class action lawsuits in employment discrimination cases often provide greater leverage for plaintiffs and can result in systemic changes to workplace policies.
For G4S, the decision means the company must defend against the racial discrimination allegations in federal court rather than the potentially more controlled environment of arbitration. The company will now face the prospect of a public trial and the possibility of significant damages if the plaintiffs prove their discrimination claims.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between employers and employees over arbitration clauses in employment contracts. While employers generally favor arbitration for its efficiency and privacy, employees and their advocates often argue that arbitration can limit workers' rights and reduce their ability to hold companies accountable for workplace violations.
The Sixth Circuit's decision also demonstrates the importance of carefully drafted arbitration agreements. Companies seeking to compel arbitration must ensure their agreements clearly cover the types of disputes that may arise, as exclusion clauses can significantly limit the scope of mandatory arbitration.
The Renaissance Center's prominence in Detroit adds another layer of significance to the case. As a major landmark and employment center in the city, workplace conditions at the facility could affect hundreds of workers and serve as a bellwether for employment practices at other high-profile venues.
With the arbitration question resolved, the case will now return to the district court for further proceedings on the underlying discrimination claims. Barnes and his colleagues will have the opportunity to present evidence supporting their allegations of racial discrimination, while G4S will mount its defense in federal court.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion was marked as "not recommended for publication," indicating it may have limited precedential value for future cases. However, the ruling provides clarity on how courts should interpret exclusion clauses in arbitration agreements within the circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.