Shock Slur Sticker Triggers Court Brawl

Row of SUVs parked at a dealership lot — Photo: Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock

A Wisconsin lawsuit now links a car dealership to a racial slur on a customer’s service sticker, pulling a viral Ole Miss controversy into federal court.

Story Snapshot

A customer sued Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek over a racial slur printed on a service sticker.
The case was removed to federal court as Starks v. Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek, Inc., No. 2:2026-cv-01747.
Reports say an involved employee was later fired; the complaint also names a John Doe technician.
Media coverage ties the case to an Ole Miss student’s separate viral incident and family links to Kunes.

What the lawsuit says happened at the Oak Creek dealership

Makayla Starks filed suit against Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek and an unnamed technician after a January 2025 oil change at the dealership at 7020 South 27th Street. She says she found a racial slur printed on the car’s window service sticker after picking up her vehicle. The complaint asserts discrimination and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, plus negligent training and supervision, tied to the alleged act.

The case, first filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was removed by the dealership to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The federal docket lists Starks as plaintiff and Kunes Buick GMC of Oak Creek, Inc. and John Doe as defendants under Case No. 2:2026-cv-01747. Removal occurred on September 24, 2026, moving the dispute into federal court procedures.

Who is accused and what the company says

The complaint uses a John Doe placeholder for the technician alleged to have handled or placed the sticker. Local reporting states the “employee involved” was later fired, though public materials do not identify that person by name or explain the basis for termination. Separate coverage reported the dealership denied intentional discrimination in the incident, framing the allegation and the company’s denial ahead of any court ruling.

The plaintiff seeks damages for emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of enjoyment of life. Reports say Starks described crying in her car for about 20 minutes after seeing the sticker and later experiencing anxiety and humiliation. The suit ties those harms to the alleged conduct during the service visit and to the dealership’s training and supervision responsibilities for staff.

How a viral Ole Miss video pulled the family business into focus

Coverage of the lawsuit has been amplified by a separate viral video involving University of Mississippi student Alaina Kunes, who apologized after making racist gestures outside Black students’ door. Several outlets highlighted her family’s connection to Kunes Auto Group as they reported on the Oak Creek case. That framing linked the two controversies in headlines even though the lawsuit centers on a dealership service incident in Wisconsin.

Family business of Ole Miss student who made monkey noises outside black students’ door hit with lawsuit over racism claims #Racism #Racialinjustice https://t.co/tAqWIDmwyC

— Passionate Poet (@Tofali) November 11, 2026

For readers across the political spectrum, two themes stand out: accountability and proof. The case raises questions a court will have to sort out, including who made the sticker, what the employer knew, and how damages are shown. The specific pleadings point to common legal issues in customer-facing discrimination cases, such as employer responsibility for staff conduct and the need to validate evidence and intent in a workplace setting.

Why this matters beyond one dealership

Public disputes like this one often turn on employer liability standards and documentation. Federal guidance on race discrimination explains that businesses cannot excuse discriminatory acts by pointing to customer preferences, and courts examine whether employers trained, supervised, and responded to issues in a reasonable way. Those standards shape outcomes in cases where an employee’s alleged act harms a customer and where corporate controls and follow-up are at issue.