WRIGHT v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MARYLAND, INC., 1:12-cv-01695

Lawrence Wright, an African-American dump-truck driver, was hired by Waste Management of Maryland in 2007 and transferred to Gaithersburg in Feb 2009 after a facility closure.
Waste Management had an Attendance and Punctuality Policy (amended June 1, 2009) using a point/"occurrence" system that led to termination at eight occurrences; some excused leaves (e.g., FMLA) exist.
Wright accumulated occurrences for multiple absences and tardies in 2009 (Feb 16, Mar 7/9, May 2, June 6, June 15, July 18); two March occurrences were later rescinded after he submitted documentation.
Management (supervisor Daryl Smith, HR manager Marshelle Hightower, and route supervisor Troy Mills) terminated Wright on or about July 21, 2009, citing excessive occurrences under the policy.
Wright sued under Title VII alleging race discrimination; Waste Management moved for summary judgment arguing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (policy violations) and that Wright failed to show pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination	Wright disputes some occurrences and contends scheduling/discipline were improperly applied	Waste Management says termination resulted from accumulated occurrences under its attendance policy	Court: Employer offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (policy violations)
Whether the stated reason was pretext via fabrication of occurrences	Wright contends some occurrences were wrongly issued or fabricated (e.g., called in, flat tire, improper scheduling)	Defendant produced contemporaneous records and shows policy application and reasonable belief in facts	Court: No evidence that occurrences were fabricated or that employer’s factual belief was unreasonable; pretext not shown
Whether there was disparate treatment / selective enforcement	Wright points to alleged selective enforcement and termination statistics of transferred African-American drivers	Defendant: no similarly-situated non-African-American comparators; replacement hire was African-American	Court: No comparator evidence; statistics insufficient alone; replacement within same class undermines discrimination inference

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and evaluation of evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (when employer articulates legitimate reason court evaluates pretext, not prima facie)
Evans v. Sebelius, 716 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (standard for showing pretext at summary judgment)
George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (reasonable belief in underlying facts can justify action even if incorrect)
Fischbach v. D.C. Dept. of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (court won’t second-guess personnel decisions absent discriminatory motive)
Montgomery v. Chao, 546 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (need for similarly-situated comparators to show disparate treatment)
Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (replacement within same protected class weakens discrimination inference)