Filed: May 01, 2019
Latest Update: May 01, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . Anthony Young, representing himself, filed suit against MedMark Treatment Center alleging that he was fired from his job as a nurse because of his race (African-American) and gender (male). Medmark has filed a motion for summary judgment, which Young has opposed. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. Medmark has thoroughly documented numerous non-discriminatory reasons for Young's termination, including medication errors,
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . Anthony Young, representing himself, filed suit against MedMark Treatment Center alleging that he was fired from his job as a nurse because of his race (African-American) and gender (male). Medmark has filed a motion for summary judgment, which Young has opposed. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. Medmark has thoroughly documented numerous non-discriminatory reasons for Young's termination, including medication errors, ..
More
MEMORANDUM
CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.
Anthony Young, representing himself, filed suit against MedMark Treatment Center alleging that he was fired from his job as a nurse because of his race (African-American) and gender (male). Medmark has filed a motion for summary judgment, which Young has opposed. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
Medmark has thoroughly documented numerous non-discriminatory reasons for Young's termination, including medication errors, patient complaints, and escalation of a confrontation with a patient, which resulted in the patient being tased by the police. Young's proffered comparator, a white female, was not shown to have been involved in any similar conduct. Of the two supervisors who decided to terminate Young's employment, one is the same individual who hired him a year earlier and indeed allowed him to remain employed after a prior medication error; the other is an African-American male.
While Young may disagree with Medmark's business judgment, that does not provide a basis for this lawsuit. Young has failed to provide any evidence to show a discriminatory motive by Medmark. There is no genuine dispute of fact for a jury to resolve. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014); Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 134-35 (4th Cir. 2002); Sanders v. Tikras Tech. Sols. Corp., 725 Fed. App'x. 228, 231 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018).
A separate Order follows.
