Cole v. Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences

1 Citing case

  1. Marable v. Marion Military Inst.

    906 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Ala. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing that “[g]rounds alleged in the complaint but not relied upon in summary judgment are deemed abandoned”

    However, evidence of Plaintiff's past good performance cannot be used now to show that later unsatisfactory performance in the 2009–10 academic year—cited as the principal reason for Marable's separation—is merely a pretext for discrimination. See Cole v. Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, 2011 WL 671683, *8 (S.D.Ala.2011) ( citing Muse v. N.Y. City Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., No. 96–CV–6221 FB ASC, 2000 WL 1209427, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2000) (“Prior good evaluations of the plaintiff's work performance alone cannot establish that later unsatisfactory evaluations are a pretext for unlawful discrimination.”) (quoting Moorer v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 964 F.Supp. 665, 674 (E.D.N.Y.1997), overruled on other grounds )). The remainder of Marable's pretext argument consists of conclusory accusations of “disparate treatment,” “increased scrutiny,” “a general campaign to punish” Marable, and “other retaliatory acts” which contain citations to the record that either do not support the fact alleged or violate Local Rule 7.2, as discussed extensively, supra.