CourtCases2010

Emsa 85 f appx 1 3 3d cir2003 not precedential

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2101 et seq. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 03-cv-00269E), District Judge: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill. Neal A. Sanders, Law Offices of Neal Alan Sanders, Butler, PA, for Appellant. 270 David S. Fryman, Farrah I. Gold, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee. Before McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI [FN*], Judge. OPINION RESTANI, Judge. *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Edward L. Walsh ("Walsh") is a former employee of DefendantAppellee Wal Mart Stores Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). Walsh claims that the termination of his employment by Wal-Mart was motivated by retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq.. The District Court granted WalMart's motion for summary judgment. We will affirm. I. Procedural and Factual Background On October 7, 2002, Walsh's employment at Wal-Mart's Cranberry, Pennsylvania store was terminated by Wal-Mart on the basis of four complaints from employees alleging acts of sexual harassment by Walsh. Walsh had been employed as a people greeter in the store since June 1999, and was responsible for greeting and thanking customers, providing shopping carts and other customer service, identifying returned items in accordance with company procedures, and visually verifying customers' receipts. Walsh's job performance came into question following verbal and written reprimands in December 2001 and February 2002 for failing to greet customers and properly mark returned merchandise, and for failing to stop a customer who brought a BB gun into the store for exchange. These incidents were also reflected in Walsh's performance evaluations, which stated that he generally met expectations, but was "below expectations" on some requirements. Wal-Mart follows a sequenced discipline policy when an employee's conduct falls below company expectations...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online