Hill v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90976
M.D.N.C.2012Background
- Hill, a 61-year-old P&D driver, worked for SEFL in Greensboro since 1982; SEFL uses a proprietary, objective productivity formula to rate driver performance.
- Hill received multiple corrective actions from 2007–2010 for performance and policy violations, culminating in a final action warning in 2010.
- In May–June 2010, Hill was suspended over a customer issue, offered a night-linehaul position he could not take due to glaucoma, and subsequently terminated on June 3, 2010.
- Defendant contends Hill’s termination was based on unsatisfactory performance as reflected in the performance metrics and corrective actions.
- Hill filed suit in 2011 alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation; the court later granted summary judgment for SEFL and granted in part the motion to strike improper evidence.
- The court addressed the defendant’s Motion to Strike (Exhibits 1 and 2) before ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment, granting Exhibit 2 in full and striking certain portions of Exhibit 1.]
- Note: Plaintiff’s retaliation claim was conceded to be unwinnable and was not at issue for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA claim viability | Hill alleges age-based termination | Evidence shows неводимых/undisputed performance issues | Plaintiff’s age claim fails; no showing of fourth-prong pretextual discrimination |
| Disability under ADA | Hill is disabled by glaucoma affecting seeing/working | Hill not substantially limited; no disability | Summary judgment for disability claims appropriate; Hill not disabled as defined |
| Wrongful discharge under ADA | Disability plus improper termination | Termination based on unsatisfactory performance, not disability | Claims fail for lack of evidence of disability and lack of meeting legitimate expectations |
| Failure to accommodate under ADA | Employer failed to accommodate linehaul option | Linehaul accommodation was not reasonable; nighttime driving essential | Summary judgment for failure to accommodate; no reasonable accommodation established |
| Motion to Strike evidence | Brooks affidavit and Guthrie letter contain admissible, relevant evidence | Exhibit 2 unsworn letter inadmissible; Exhibit 1 partial inadmissible portions | Exhibit 2 stricken in full; Exhibit 1 partially stricken; remaining portions considered |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2003) (perspective of decision maker governs expectations)
- Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank, 434 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2006) (substantial limitation in working/seeing requires individualized inquiry)
- Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment in discrimination cases; inferences viewed in plaintiff’s favor but cannot rely on self-assessment)
- Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment affidavits cannot be conclusory or based on hearsay)
- DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 133 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1998) (limits on court’s weighing of employment decisions; court not a super-PD)
- Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2006) (employee’s perceived performance must be from decision-maker view; not self-assessment)