Graves v. Bank of America, N.A., 54 F. Supp. 3d 434

Graves worked at Bank of America call center (since 2007); she sought treatment for stress, anxiety, and depression beginning in 2009 and obtained intermittent medical leave and a reduced schedule in 2011.
Bank approved a reduced schedule in June 2011; Graves returned to full-time in January 2012 after her doctor cleared her.
Graves filed multiple EEOC charges in 2012 (one in Feb. 2012, one May 29, 2012 alleging failure to accommodate, and a charge after termination in Feb. 2013).
In late 2012 Bank investigators discovered Graves forwarded customer-sensitive emails from her work account to her personal email; she admitted forwarding them and refused to sign an affidavit confirming deletion.
Bank terminated Graves on January 3, 2013 for violating its Code of Ethics and for failing to cooperate with the internal investigation.
Graves sued under the ADA for discrimination (failure to accommodate and wrongful discharge) and retaliation, plus state law public-policy claims; Bank moved for summary judgment and the court granted it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Wrongful discharge under ADA	Graves contends she was terminated due to disability	Bank says termination was for Code of Ethics violation and noncooperation	Summary judgment for Bank — Graves failed to show she met employer's legitimate expectations or that termination was discriminatory
Failure to accommodate	Graves says Bank denied reasonable reduced schedule beginning May 2011	Bank says it accommodated her (approved reduced schedule and leaves) and claim is untimely	Summary judgment for Bank — claim time-barred and on merits fails (Graves declined to disclose medical info; Bank did accommodate)
Retaliation under ADA	Graves alleges termination was retaliation for filing EEOC charge (May 29, 2012)	Bank says it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; also questions whether decisionmakers knew of EEOC charge and causation is lacking	Summary judgment for Bank — no causal link (long time lapse, no evidence decisionmakers knew) and no pretext shown
State-law public-policy claims	Graves parallels federal discrimination/retaliation claims	Bank argues state claims rise and fall with federal claims; no separate retaliatory discharge under NC law	Summary judgment for Bank — state claims fail for same reasons as federal claims

Reynolds v. Am. Natl. Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) (framework for ADA wrongful discharge prima facie case)
Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2004) (elements for ADA discrimination claim)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Warch v. Ohio Gas Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2006) (legitimacy of employer expectations)
Ennis v. Nat’l Ass’n of Business & Edu. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55 (4th Cir. 1995) (pretext analysis)
Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)
Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2011) (elements for ADA retaliation claim)
Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (employer knowledge required for retaliation inference)
Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity and causation in retaliation claims)
Jones v. Dole Food Co., 827 F. Supp. 2d 532 (W.D.N.C. 2011) (when employee violates known policy, employer’s expectations not met)