FOLTZ v. Office of the County Attorney, Defendant. (2018)
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Dwain FOLTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, Office of the County Attorney, Defendant.
Decided: November 08, 2018
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Ellen Kyriacou Renaud, SWICK & SHAPIRO PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kimberly Baucom, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Karen L. Gibbons, Deputy County Attorney, Elizabeth Teare, County Attorney, Robert M. Hardy, Assistant County Attorney, Adam Yost, Assistant County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Dwain Foltz appeals the district court's order granting Fairfax County summary judgment on his disability discrimination claim, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West 2013 & Supp. 2018). We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error.
We first hold that Foltz did not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination as required by the burden-shifting paradigm set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). We also hold that, even if Foltz did establish his prima facie case, no reasonable jury would conclude that Foltz would not have been separated from the County “but for” his disability. See Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co. Inc., 816 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that a “but-for” causation standard applies in ADA context); see also United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (recognizing that this court may affirm the district court's judgment “on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted) ), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 273, 199 L.Ed.2d 175 (2017).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.