College Students Did The Unthinkable To Black Student

Lawsuit document with eyeglasses and pen — Photo: Ulf Wittrock / Shutterstock

A racist slur printed on a service sticker has pulled a Wisconsin auto dealership into federal court and into a national spotlight it did not seek.

Story Snapshot

A customer sued Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek over an alleged racial slur on a window sticker.
The case was removed to federal court in Wisconsin and names a John Doe technician.
The suit seeks damages for emotional distress and faults training and supervision.
Coverage links the case to an Ole Miss viral video involving a family member, but the company says she has no role in the business.

What The Lawsuit Says Happened At The Dealership

Makayla Starks brought her sport-utility vehicle to Kunes Buick GMC at 7020 South 27th Street in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, for an oil change in January 2025. After the service, she says she found a window sticker with a racial slur printed on it. She alleges she sat in her car and cried for about 20 minutes after seeing it. Reporting says the complaint names the dealership and a still-unidentified service technician as defendants.

Starks filed in state court. Kunes Buick GMC then moved the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on September 24, 2026. The federal docket lists the matter as Starks v. Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek, Inc., Case No. 2:2026-cv-01747, with a “John Doe” placeholder for the technician. That move is common when parties are in different states or when federal questions or thresholds are met.

The Claims And The Stakes For Employer Liability

The complaint asserts racial discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent training and supervision. Those theories aim at both the act and the workplace controls around it. The lawsuit seeks compensation for emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, matching the alleged impact the plaintiff describes. The case will likely rise or fall on attribution, intent, and proof of injury rather than the word’s offensiveness alone.

Employer responsibility depends on who did what, when, and under whose authority. Courts often look at whether an employer acted with reasonable care to prevent and correct misconduct. If the actor is a co-worker, plaintiffs often must show the employer was negligent in controlling conditions. Federal case law sets these guideposts for workplace harassment and related negligence claims. While Starks was a customer, not an employee, those standards shape how juries weigh training, supervision, and response.

Identification, Evidence, And The Company’s Response

The unknown technician creates a clear next step: identify the person who printed, handled, and placed the sticker. Service-lane records, workstation logs, label templates, and camera footage can draw a line from printer to person. Chain of custody for the sticker also matters. Photos, timestamps, and preserved originals can support forensic review. These are basic steps that decide whether a claim is proven or just alleged in paper form.

Media reports say an employee linked to the incident was fired, and the dealership denies intentional discrimination. Those are standard early responses and do not answer the core evidentiary questions on their own. A clean, credible investigation will matter more than statements. Common sense and conservative values both say the process should be fair, the facts should rule, and any discipline should match verified conduct, not headlines.

How A Viral College Video Amplified A Local Lawsuit

The case drew national notice because of a separate viral video from the University of Mississippi. In that video, student Alaina Kunes made racist gestures outside Black students’ door and later apologized. Reporters then pointed to her family ties to Kunes Auto Group. The company and her attorneys said she never worked for the business and had no ownership. They also said a family member left company leadership months earlier.

The link makes noise but does not decide the lawsuit. Courts rule on the act at issue, not on public anger at a different event. The plaintiff still must show who made or placed the sticker, that the act was based on race, and that the dealership failed in training or oversight in a way that caused her harm. The defense will press whether a single act by an employee, even if vile, creates corporate liability under the pled theories. That is the right arena for this fight.

What To Watch Next In The Case

Discovery will test the dealership’s systems and policies. Expect requests for service assignments, badge access, printer logs, training materials, and call records. Expect depositions of service managers and the technician once identified. If the sticker still exists, expect printing analysis and metadata review. If the plaintiff seeks damages for anxiety and humiliation, expect requests for counseling records or corroborating witnesses. The federal docket will show each step as it happens.

One narrow caveat applies: until a judge or jury rules, the complaint’s assertions remain allegations, and the company’s denial remains a defense. The law exists to bring both into the light. A careful record, not a viral frame, will decide what happened in that service bay and what it should cost.