528 F. App'x 285
4th Cir.2013Background
- Kelley appeals district court's grant of summary judgment in UPS's favor on his Title VII discrimination claim.
- The appellate court reviews de novo a summary judgment; no genuine dispute of material fact permits summary judgment.
- Kelley bears the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to prove a prima facie case of discrimination in employee discipline.
- Comparators must be substantially similar in conduct and circumstances; Kelley and McDonald were not.
- UPS argued a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Kelley’s termination; the district court found no pretext.
- The court affirmed, holding Kelley failed to show a comparator or pretext to support discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie showing of discrimination | Kelley asserts discrimination via comparator McDonald. | UPS contends Kelley lacks valid comparator and did not prove disparate treatment. | No valid prima facie case established |
| Valid comparators in discipline context | Kelley and McDonald were similar comparators. | They were not engaged in same conduct or under same standards. | Not valid comparators |
| Existence of a policy governing assignments | A policy required volunteers before directing a part-time driver, affecting comparators. | Policy does not exist; Hanser had discretion to assign or seek volunteers. | No policy exists to support Kelley’s comparators |
| Pretext after failure to establish prima facie case | Different treatment indicates pretext. | No substantial evidence of pretext beyond lack of comparator. | No issue of material fact as to pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605 (4th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard; favorable view of facts for nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (material facts and evidence; genuine disputes preclude summary judgment)
- Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645 (4th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc; McDonnell Douglas framework in discrimination)
- Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (prima facie framework for discrimination in Fourth Circuit)
- Moore v. City of Charlotte, 754 F.2d 1100 (4th Cir. 1985) (adapting McDonnell Douglas to discipline context)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext on ultimate burden; burden-shifting reached at pretext stage)
- Lightner v. City of Wilmington, 545 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008) (comparator analysis; similarity of offenses and punishments)
- Haywood v. Locke, 387 F. App’x 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished; comparator framework in Fourth Circuit)