Holbrook v. LSC Communications US LLC, 3:15-cv-00552

Holbrook, age 62 with diabetes, worked at LSC Communications (successor to RR Donnelley) from 1978 until termination in October 2014.
LSC maintains an at-will employment policy with a progressive "positive counseling" discipline system: record of conversation, then final warning, with failure to comply normally resulting in termination.
Holbrook received a final warning in 2012 for three prior incidents (March 2010 confrontation, Oct. 2011 expression of frustration, Dec. 2011 outburst). Subsequent reviews noted improvement.
On Oct. 13, 2014 Holbrook and younger coworker Tim Scheidt had a heated confrontation; Scheidt reported Holbrook threatened to punch him. Holbrook admits yelling and cursing but denies making a physical threat.
Pierog (supervisor) terminated Holbrook for violating the final warning based on the alleged physical threat; Scheidt received only a "record of conversation."
Holbrook sued under the ADEA and ADA; LSC moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for defendant because Holbrook failed to identify a similarly situated employee treated more favorably.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADEA disparate-treatment: whether Holbrook was terminated because of age	Holbrook contends he was meeting expectations and younger employees (e.g., Scheidt) were treated more leniently	LSC argues Holbrook was terminated for violating a final warning (alleged physical threat) and no younger employee is similarly situated	Summary judgment for LSC: Holbrook failed to identify a younger, materially similarly situated employee (different disciplinary histories)
ADA disparate-treatment: whether Holbrook (a disabled individual) was terminated because of disability	Holbrook contends he is a qualified individual with a disability and was treated worse than non-disabled coworkers like Scheidt	LSC argues Scheidt is not similarly situated; disciplinary histories differ and thus cannot support an ADA claim	Summary judgment for LSC: Holbrook cannot show a similarly situated nondisabled employee treated more favorably, so prima facie case fails

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment may be granted when nonmoving party lacks evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (court must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party; standard for genuine issue)
Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319 (similarly situated analysis in disciplinary discrimination cases)
Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (McDonnell Douglas framework remains appropriate)
Simpson v. Franciscan All., Inc., 827 F.3d 656 (employee lacking similar disciplinary history is not similarly situated)
Fortier v. Ameritech Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 161 F.3d 1106 (prior evaluations alone do not establish adequacy at time of adverse action)
Taylor-Novotny v. Health All. Med. Plans, Inc., 772 F.3d 478 (ADA prima facie and similarly situated standard)
Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc., 753 F.3d 676 (summary judgment appropriate when plaintiff cannot establish ADA prima facie case)
Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662 (summary judgment if plaintiff fails to establish any element of prima facie case)
Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp., 472 F.3d 930 (same)