Glendy W. Tolbert, III v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc.'s motion for complete summary judgment in an employment-discrimination action brought by Glendy W. Tolbert, III. The court dismissed with prejudice claims alleging gender discrimination, disability discrimination, ADA retaliation, and Title VII retaliation. The court concluded that the gender-discrimination claim was unexhausted and that the remaining claims lacked sufficient evidence of disability, causation, or decisionmaker knowledge.

Holdings

1. A Title VII gender-discrimination claim must be dismissed when the plaintiff's EEOC charge neither asserts gender discrimination nor mentions the factual basis for that claim.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed on his ADA discrimination claims based on accident-related injuries because he abandoned the claims by failing to address them in response to summary judgment and, independently, failed to produce evidence of a causal connection between his injuries and any adverse employment action.
3. Plaintiff's temporary COVID-19 infection did not establish an ADA disability on the evidence presented because he did not identify or produce evidence that the infection substantially limited one or more major life activities.
4. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ADA retaliation because he did not show that he engaged in ADA-protected activity connected to his termination.
5. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation because he offered no evidence that the actual decisionmaker knew of his protected request to attend an EEOC proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies for his Title VII gender-discrimination claim.
2. Whether Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that Dollar Tree discriminated against him because of his accident-related injuries or COVID-19 infection in violation of the ADA.
3. Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA.
4. Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation based on his request for time off to attend an EEOC proceeding involving a former employer.
5. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on all claims.

Disposition

other