ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis man has filed a federal lawsuit against Crossmark Inc. and Acosta Inc., alleging he was subjected to race discrimination and retaliation after complaining about the treatment of Black employees and store staff.
Michael Benson filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Missouri Human Rights Act. Benson is seeking damages for alleged discrimination, retaliation, lost income and benefits, emotional distress and other losses.
According to the complaint, Benson began working for Crossmark in November 2023 as a Retail Client Merchandising Representative on the company's Ferrero team.
His duties included visiting stores in the St. Louis area that sold Ferrero brand chocolates, including gas stations and convenience stores, and determining which products were on store shelves.
Benson alleges he was an above-average employee who routinely received compliments for his performance.
Benson alleges that in March 2024, when his supervisor, Perry Hoeven, began accompanying him on store visits, he observed differences in the way Hoeven treated Black and Caucasian store employees.
The complaint alleges Hoeven was disrespectful toward Black employees at food mart and liquor store locations, many of which Benson says were Black-owned, while interacting in a friendly and professional manner with white employees at suburban locations.
The complaint also alleges Hoeven would move products around Black-owned stores without permission but instructed Benson to obtain permission before moving products at suburban stores with Caucasian staff.
In April 2024, Benson says he observed Hoeven harass and discriminate against coworker Kenny Jackson, who is Black. Benson alleges he helped Jackson file formal complaints with Crossmark's human resources department regarding the alleged race-based discrimination.
According to the lawsuit, after Hoeven learned Benson was assisting Jackson, Hoeven began retaliating against both men by imposing policies that Benson described as nonexistent or fabricated, including an early start time that allegedly applied only to Benson and Jackson.
Benson alleges he complained to Hoeven's supervisor in June 2024 about the alleged discrimination and retaliation, including the start-time requirement and the differing treatment of Black and Caucasian store owners.
The complaint states that Acosta formally acquired Crossmark in September 2024. Around that time, Benson was told he had to choose between his Crossmark position and his existing job with Acosta subsidiary Mosaic because dual employment within Acosta was prohibited.
Benson subsequently informed Crossmark on Sept. 24, 2024, that he would resign from his Crossmark position effective Oct. 19 while continuing to work for Mosaic.
Benson alleges, however, that Hoeven called him on Oct. 15 and told him that Oct. 15 would instead be his final day because Crossmark had decided to accept his resignation early.
In December 2024, Acosta announced that Mosaic's Tracfone wireless program would end at the close of the year and that Benson's team of approximately 70 to 100 employees would be laid off effective Dec. 31.
According to the complaint, Acosta gave Benson six months to obtain another position with one of its subsidiaries so he could maintain his tenure and benefits.
Benson subsequently applied for a part-time Retail Sales Representative position on Crossmark's Ferrero team in St. Louis in February 2025.
The complaint states the position was essentially the same job he had successfully performed for about a year before voluntarily resigning.
On March 4, Benson was notified that the company had decided to pursue other candidates. He later learned, according to the lawsuit, that Hoeven had made the decision not to move forward with his application.
Benson applied again March 11 for another Ferrero team position. He alleges a Crossmark recruiter told him the St. Louis position had been filled and that another opening in the St. Louis area, located in Granite City, Illinois, required representatives to live on the Illinois side of the territory.
Benson alleges that requirement was false because he had previously worked with representatives who lived in St. Louis, Missouri, while working in the Granite City territory. He further alleges the recruiter later confirmed Hoeven had insisted on the Illinois residency requirement.
On March 12, Benson emailed Employee Relations and Human Resources, stating that he believed Hoeven was retaliating against him for assisting a former employee with harassment and discrimination claims.
On April 2, an Acosta human resources senior business partner notified Benson that the company's review had found no evidence of retaliation.
The complaint alleges Benson continued applying for positions with Crossmark throughout 2025 and 2026, including multiple Retail Sales Representative and Retail Merchandiser positions in the St. Louis area.
According to the lawsuit, he either received no follow-up or was told his applications would not proceed. In one instance, a recruiter told Benson a position was unavailable because of current hiring needs but allegedly refused to identify which position the email concerned.
Benson alleges he continued submitting applications, including applications in November 2025 and January, June and July.
In June he was interviewed for a Retail Merchandiser position but was later told the client had already scheduled interviews and decided to proceed with one of those applicants.
He alleges he received no response to his July 9, application for another Retail Sales Merchandiser position.
The lawsuit alleges the repeated rejection or lack of response to Benson's applications was retaliation for his assistance to Jackson and his own complaints regarding discrimination and retaliation. Benson alleges that, absent that protected activity, Crossmark and Acosta would have rehired him.
Benson alleges the defendants' actions caused him humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and financial losses, including lost income, salary, bonuses, benefits and other compensation. He alleges the conduct was intentional, malicious and willful and is seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
The complaint brings two counts against the defendants: retaliation in violation of Section 1981 and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Benson is asking the court to declare that the defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices, award him damages and provide other relief the court considers appropriate.
The allegations in the complaint are claims made by Benson in the lawsuit. The document itself does not include findings by the court on the merits of those allegations.
Benson is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. He is represented by Laura E. Schrick of Mathis, Marifian & Richter; and Michael P. Hilferty and Bianca P. Acquaviva of White & Hilferty.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:26-cv-01495
