Perry v. Computer Sciences Corporation
429 F. App'x 218
4th Cir.2011Background
- Perry appeals district court summary judgment in favor of CSC on ADA/Rehabilitation Act discrimination and retaliation claims, and on FMLA retaliation.
- Plaintiff alleged CSC failed to promote her in 2008 due to disability and in retaliation for internal discrimination complaints.
- Plaintiff alleged CSC terminated her due to disability and in retaliation for internal discrimination complaints.
- Plaintiff alleged CSC terminated her in retaliation for taking FMLA leave.
- Court applies McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to ADA/Rehabilitation Act and FMLA retaliation claims; district court found no prima facie cases or pretext for CSC’s actions.
- Court affirmed summary judgment for CSC on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for disability discrimination | Perry met prima facie case and CSC lacked legitimate reason. | Perry lacked global experience; not qualified for promotion. | No genuine issue; CSC’s reason non-pretextual; affirm. |
| Pretext for failure to promote | Promotion denial were pretextual for discrimination/retaliation. | Promotion denial was due to Perry’s lack of global experience; legitimate reason. | No pretext shown; summary judgment upheld. |
| Discrimination/termination based on disability | Termination was discriminatory due to disability; pretext exists. | Termination due to departmental reorganization and Perry’s unavailability; legitimate. | Reorganization rationale upheld; no pretext. |
| FMLA retaliation | Termination connected to FMLA leave; protected activity occurred. | No causal link shown between FMLA leave and termination. | No causal connection; summary judgment for CSC affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (pretext framework guidance for discrimination/retaliation)
- Ennis v. Nat’l Ass’n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, 53 F.3d 55 (4th Cir. 1995) (pretext framework application)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (pretext must be shown by plaintiff for ultimate burden)
- E.E.O.C. v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1992) (reorganization evidence relevant to pretext)
- Yashenko v. Harrah’s N.C. Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2006) (FMLA retaliation framework)
- Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998) (causation in retaliation cases)
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (elements of prima facie case for discrimination)