Thomas v. University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical System, Inc.

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 2/29/2016. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

WILLIE THOMAS

v.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
BALTIMORE WASHINGTON MEDICAL
SYSTEM, INC.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil No. - JFM-15-787

******
MEMORANDUM

Willie Thomas has brought an action for race and age discrimination and retaliation
against University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical System, Inc. Discovery has been
completed, and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment.

The motion will be

granted.
Thomas cannot prove that he was meeting the legitimate expectations of his position at
the time of the termination of his employment. The record establishes that he failed to comply
with the efficiency and the productivity standard required of him. The record also establishes
that Thomas had an unenviable record of absenteeism.
To the extent that he relies upon his own opinion (provided by an affidavit to his
opposition memorandum) that he was meeting defendant's expectations at the time of his
discharge, the law is clear that such a self-serving statement does not create a genuine issue of
material fact. See King v. Rums/eld, 328 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir. 2003).

Likewise, the fact that

Thomas received a "satisfactory" rating in his initial annual performance review in April 2013 is
immaterial. Thomas's employment was terminated in February 2014, and it was his

1

performance at the time of the termination of his employment that is important. See Diamond v.
Bea Maurer, Inc., 128 F. App'x 968,973 (4th Cir. 2005).
Thomas also failed to establish that any similarly situated employee received more
favorable treatment than did he. The two persons to whom he points in his opposition, Kathryn
Novicky and Rose Hughes, did not hold the same position as did Thomas. They were not regular
employees and worked minimal hours. They were not subject to the same productivity
standards. In any event, Thomas has not provided evidence that Novicky or Hughes scored low
on their performance rating reviews or failed to meet the minimum level of productivity.

They

also did not have any attendance problem.
As for Thomas's retaliation claim, more than four months separated the termination of
Thomas's employment and the claimed protected activities. Under Fourth Circuit law this time
period is "too long to establish a causal connection."

See Pascual v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.,

193 F. App'x 229, 233 (4th Cir. 2006). Moreover, at the time of the alleged protected activity,
Thomas's own work was being scrutinized by his supervisor.

;:--~
-,

~

\}

r=r.

:r-~"r-"
--i ~
i"1I
A separate order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment is b'eing~rijered;:'
t

I

~r_'-,

['J
W

;;~.::

:r>
.....• ,.

;::;-

herewith.

c

-,",'~
Gj("')
,"Tj

N

Date:

"1"/"'111

.l.L*'C~
Frederick Motz
Umted States Dlstnct Judge

2

a

. r-:.