Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Acie Lyons v. Eric Shinseki, 4th Cir. (2011)
Acie Lyons v. Eric Shinseki, 4th Cir. (2011)
No. 11-1361
ACIE LYONS,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs,
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cv-02532-WDQ)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Acie Lyons brought suit against the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) alleging violations
of
the
Rehabilitation
Act
of
1973,
order
judgment
and
as
29
U.S.C.A.
granting
the
Secretarys
dismissing
his
retaliation
discrimination claims.
amended,
motion
and
for
summary
disability-based
He argues first,
environment
was
hostile;
and
third,
that
the
Secretary
Finding no error,
we affirm.
We review de novo a district courts order granting
summary
judgment,
inferences
viewing
therefrom
nonmoving party.
in
the
the
facts
light
and
most
the
reasonable
favorable
to
the
2011), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 80 U.S.L.W. 3018 (U.S. Oct. 11,
2011) (Nos. 10-1447, 10-1497).
Inc.,
For
477
U.S.
242,
249
(1986).
nonmoving
party
to
allegations
of
evidence
do
in
not
suffice,
support
of
[the
nor
does
nonmoving
mere
partys]
case
for
disability
discrimination
under
any
of
the
Presentations
LLC,
375
F.3d
266,
272
n.9
F.3d
373,
387
n.11
(failure
to
accommodate);
Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., 252 F.3d 696, 702 (4th Cir. 2001)
(disparate treatment).
The ADA defines disability as either: (A) a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more . . .
major
life
activities
. . .
(B)
record
of
such
an
45
C.F.R.
84.3(j)
(2010).
[A]ny
mental
or
alone,
disability;
substantially
Id.
an
impairment
the
employee
limits
is
not
sufficient
also
must
major
life
prove
analysis
is
therefore
an
individualized
the
activity.
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489 (1999).
disability
to
The
inquiry,
198 (2002).
Lyons presented evidence in the district court that he
was unable to lift more than twenty to twenty-five pounds and
that, for a brief time, he could not sit continuously for more
than
four
hours.
He
stated
that
he
also
has
impairments
argues
that
when
all
his
impairments
are
considered
in
See 29
In Williams,
when
compared
to
an
average
persons
to
lift,
work,
or
perform
5
any
other
major
life
activity.
Toyota,
Id.
we
Following
clarified
that,
the
Supreme
because
Courts
disability
decision
in
determinations
restriction
Taylor v.
Fed.
can
Express
never
Corp.,
constitute
429
461,
F.3d
disability.
463
n.2
limitation.
job
are
peoples lives.
not
[T]he
manual
necessarily
tasks
unique
important
parts
to
of
any
most
Accordingly, the
Lyons
See id.
lifting
restriction
resulted
in
any
limitation
asserts
that
this
court
should
consider
the
Although we
lifting
restrictions,
see
6
Taylor,
429
F.3d
at
464
response
to
the
Secretarys
motion
for
summary
and
depression,
headaches.
bending,
laundry,
sleep
disorder
as
well
as
and
perform[s]
and
walking
routine
and
indicated
household
dusting,
chores
vacuuming,
floor
that
such
he
as
no
longer
doing
cleaning,
or
dishes,
bathroom
the
major
life
activity
of
working.
However,
Lyons
Lyons
documentation
create
or
material
other
issue
testimony,
of
fact
are
as
not
to
whether
F.3d
at
649
(stating
conclusory
sufficient
he
to
is
See Thompson,
allegations
and
mere
scintilla
of
evidence
insufficient
to
withstand
summary
judgment).
Lyons asserts that the Secretary did not contest his
need to perform light duty.
was
regarded
as
disabled,
his
assertion
is
unconvincing.
as
discussed
specific
role
for
above,
which
establish a disability.
one
the
inability
to
was
hired
insufficient
is
perform
the
to
disabled,
relating
to
we
his
decline
to
reach
disability-based
Lyons
remaining
discrimination
arguments
claims.
We
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of the Secretary with respect to these claims.
Next, we turn to the retaliation claims. Lyons argues
that the district court improperly resolved disputed facts with
respect to his retaliation claims.
there was a causal link between the protected activity and the
adverse
action.
Laber
v.
Harvey,
438
F.3d
404,
the
district
432
Lyons
concluded
asserts
that
there
that
was
no
dispute
that
court
Lyons
approached
Diggs
seeking
reasonable
accommodations
accommodation.
In
response,
Diggs
provided
Lyons
request.
Lyons
never
returned
the
forms.
In
Lyons
[Diggs]
wanted
me
to
be
reassigned.
Lyons
later
judgment
in
which
he
stated
he
sought
accommodation
extent
the
summary
judgment
9
affidavit
is
Moreover, to
inconsistent,
create
genuine
issue
of
fact
sufficient
to
survive
Lyons
contends
that
the
district
court
decision
to
remove
him
from
light
duty
was
not
We disagree.
belief
that
Diggs
was
influencing
Greenawalt;
supporting
that
an
inference
Diggs
influenced
the
program
managers decision.
Finally,
Lyons
contends
that
the
district
court
erroneously held that too great a delay had occurred between the
resolution
of
Lyons
EEOC
complaint
and
his
termination
to
and
was
denied,
10
and
he
argues
that
he
facie
case
exists
where
the
employer
takes
adverse
v.
Breeden,
(internal
quotation
time
lapse
532
U.S.
marks
between
268,
273
omitted).
protected
(2001)
(per
Consequently,
activity
and
curiam)
a
an
lengthy
adverse
v.
Total
Action
Against
Poverty,
145
F.3d
653,
657
2004.
He
Lyons
filed
an
EEOC
complaint
in
he
had
thereafter.
proximity
sought
reasonable
accommodation
through
Tillage
necessary
to
prove
his
protected
activity
was
the
259,
278
(A
six
month
lag
is
sufficient
to
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
12