Lee v. Swift Transporation Co. of Arizona, LLC, 2:12-cv-02230

Charles H. Lee, a 64-year-old trainee truck driver, sued Swift Transportation after his September 2011 termination alleging age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination (ADA), and retaliation; he had filed an EEOC charge and received a Right-to-Sue notice.
Lee completed a trainee program riding with three mentors (Quinn, Pompa, Cottrell); conflicts and complaints arose between Lee and each mentor during June–August 2011.
Mentors reported that Lee used profanity, racial epithets, was insubordinate, and threatened physical harm; Swift investigated, corroborated the mentors’ complaints, and relied on those findings to terminate Lee.
Medical records show Lee was hospitalized for a urinary issue in June 2011, was cleared by Swift’s medical examiner and his physician to return to work without restrictions, and Swift did not treat him as disabled or receive any accommodation requests.
Lee’s pro se response to the summary-judgment motion was unsworn and noncompliant with Rule 56 and local rules, so the court relied on Swift’s statement of undisputed material facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Summary judgment standard	Lee disputed Swift’s account and argued investigation was inadequate	Swift moved for summary judgment showing no genuine dispute of material fact	Court applied Rule 56 and granted summary judgment for Swift; Lee’s unsworn filings not considered
Age discrimination (ADEA)	Lee asserted termination was due to age (64) and grievances he filed	Swift argued termination was for threats/insubordination, applied uniformly, and no evidence Lee was replaced or a younger comparator treated better	Court: Lee failed to establish prima facie ADEA claim (no evidence of replacement or similarly situated younger comparator); judgment for Swift
Disability discrimination (ADA)	Lee alleged he was disabled following hospitalization and thus discriminated against	Swift showed medical clearance to return without restrictions, no accommodation requests, and no evidence Swift regarded him as disabled	Court: Lee is not disabled and failed prima facie ADA case (also no evidence of replacement); judgment for Swift
Retaliation (Title VII)	Lee claimed retaliation related to grievances he filed	Swift argued Lee did not engage in protected activity under Title VII and no causal link	Court: Lee presented no evidence of protected activity or causation; retaliation claim fails

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden-shifting and nonmoving party obligation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (requiring more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (‘‘replacement’’ element in ADEA claims)
Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. guidance on ADEA burden of proof)
Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (methods to show pretext)
Brooks v. Davey Tree Expert Co., [citation="478 F. App'x 934"] (6th Cir. discussion of direct vs. circumstantial evidence under ADEA)