Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

A recent federal jury verdict against BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC highlights the legal risks that can arise when global mobility practices intersect with U.S. anti-discrimination laws. For automotive companies operating U.S. facilities — and relying on expatriate assignments and globally integrated leadership structures — the case serves as a timely reminder that global staffing strategies must be implemented within the framework of U.S. employment law.

core/paragraph

In Dawsey v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG et al., No. 7:22-cv-03738 (D.S.C.), a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina returned a verdict on Feb. 25, 2026, awarding approximately $5.1 million to a former HR planning department manager at BMW’s Spartanburg facility. The jury found that BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC discriminated against the plaintiff based on national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The award included $100,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The jury rejected the plaintiff’s race and sex discrimination claims and further determined that BMW AG was not the plaintiff’s employer.

According to the record, the plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, alleged that she was removed from her role after being informed that the position would be filled by a German national pursuant to internal expatriate guidelines. Specifically, the policy reportedly required that the role be held by a German national when the HR vice president was not German. After a U.S. citizen was appointed to the vice president role, the plaintiff alleged she was transferred so that a German national could assume her position. The jury agreed that this constituted unlawful national origin discrimination.

Importantly, the case was not about whether BMW could transfer employees from Germany to the United States. U.S. immigration law expressly permits such transfers through programs like the L-1 intracompany transferee visa. Rather, the legal risk arose from the appearance that the role was effectively reserved for an individual of a particular nationality and that the plaintiff’s reassignment was driven by that preference.

Why This Case Matters for Automotive Employers

core/heading

Cross-border mobility is central to the automotive industry. OEMs and suppliers routinely rotate executives, engineers and operational leaders between global headquarters and U.S. facilities to align strategy, transfer expertise and develop leadership pipelines.

These practices remain lawful and essential. However, when they impact employees working in the United States, they must comply with U.S. anti-discrimination laws — regardless of whether they are driven by global organizational structures or expatriate programs.

The key takeaway from Dawsey is not that companies should limit expatriate assignments, but that roles cannot be structured or communicated as reserved for individuals of a particular nationality. Under Title VII, national origin discrimination includes treating employees differently because of their nationality or ancestry, including U.S. citizenship in this context. Even lateral transfers or reassignments — if tied to nationality — can create liability.

Broader Trend: Scrutiny of Global Workforce Practices

The risks highlighted in Dawsey are not isolated. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing how multinational employers design and implement global workforce strategies in the United States.

In Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., No. 1:21-cv-02174 (S.D.N.Y.), a Manhattan federal jury returned a verdict in late March 2026, awarding approximately $8.4 million to a former executive who alleged he was terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about the company’s hiring practices and use of foreign workers. Final judgment was entered on April 1, 2026.

The plaintiff alleged that Cognizant’s staffing model disproportionately favored certain foreign workers — particularly those entering the United States through visa programs — and that he raised internal concerns about what he viewed as discriminatory practices and potential compliance issues. According to the allegations, he was terminated after escalating those concerns. The jury ultimately found in his favor on retaliation.

While Franchitti did not involve expatriate rotation policies in the traditional sense, it is highly relevant for multinational employers. The case highlights two important risks:

Perceived favoritism toward a particular nationality or group of foreign workers can give rise to discrimination-related concerns, even where immigration programs themselves are lawful; and

core/list-item

Internal complaints about those practices can create significant retaliation exposure if not handled appropriately.

core/list

For employers, this has implications beyond hiring. Differences in how similarly situated expatriates and local employees are treated — whether in compensation, benefits or other terms and conditions of employment — can create risk if those differences are tied to nationality rather than legitimate business factors.

For example, providing expatriates with different vacation policies, allowances or other benefits tied to home-country practices may be defensible in certain contexts (e.g., as part of a structured expatriate assignment package). However, if those differences are not clearly tied to legitimate business considerations — or are perceived as favoring a particular nationality — they may raise questions under U.S. anti-discrimination laws.

Together, Dawsey and Franchitti — both decided in early 2026 — underscore a broader trend: increased scrutiny of how global mobility and workforce practices are implemented in the United States.

Labor and Employment Considerations

These cases highlight several key compliance principles:

Global employment-related policies and practices must comply with U.S. law when applied domestically Expatriate programs and global succession planning must be structured to avoid nationality-based preferences, except in very limited circumstances.

Communications can create liability Statements suggesting that roles are reserved for individuals from a particular country or an international headquarters location can be used as evidence of discriminatory intent. Even informal comments may later be scrutinized.

Business justifications should be clear and consistently applied Expatriate assignments and any associated differences in treatment (e.g., compensation, benefits or duration) should be tied to legitimate factors such as specialized knowledge, leadership development or global integration — not nationality.

Retaliation risk is significant As illustrated by Franchitti, employers must carefully handle internal complaints related to hiring practices, immigration usage or perceived inequities. Even where underlying practices are lawful, adverse action following such complaints can create independent liability.

Corporate structure matters — but does not eliminate risk The jury’s finding that BMW AG was not the employer reinforces the importance of maintaining corporate separateness. However, U.S. entities will still bear responsibility for employment decisions affecting their workforce.

Immigration and Global Mobility Implications

Employment-based immigration programs — including L-1 and E-2 visas — remain critical tools for automotive companies. These programs are designed to facilitate the movement of key personnel across global operations.

The distinction under U.S. law is not whether companies can transfer foreign employees — they can — but how those decisions are made and implemented.

Employers should ensure that expatriate assignments are structured and communicated around legitimate business factors rather than nationality, such as:

Three Questions Automotive Employers Should Ask

Do any policies or practices suggest that certain roles — or benefits — are reserved for individuals of a particular nationality?

Are differences in compensation or benefits for expatriates clearly tied to legitimate business purposes and consistently applied?

Are managers trained to recognize how U.S. anti-discrimination and retaliation laws apply to global mobility decisions?

Global mobility decisions increasingly sit at the intersection of immigration strategy and employment law risk. Our immigration and labor and employment teams work together to help companies structure expatriate programs, align immigration strategies with compliance obligations and review internal policies to reduce exposure while maintaining operational flexibility.

Talent Without Borders

Automotive

Partner

Sarah R. Bileti

Associate

Abigail J. “Abby” Coté

Immigration

Labor and Employment

Global Mobility Risks for Automotive Employers: Lessons from Recent U.S. Jury Verdicts

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

Global Mobility Risks for Automotive Employers: Lessons from Recent U.S. Jury Verdicts

professionals