The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN WILBANKS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-275-CLM
PARKER AEROSPACE
FILTRATION DIVISION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brian Wilbanks sues his former employer, Parker Aerospace
Filtration Division, for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act. 29 U.S.C. § 623. (Doc. 1). Parker asks the court to
grant it summary judgment. (Doc. 18). For the reasons explained below,
the court GRANTS Parker’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Parker hired Wilbanks as a Senior Buyer when he was 55 and fired
him when he was 60. The parties debate why. Parker says that it fired
Wilbanks because he failed to perform his job adequately. Wilbanks says
that Parker fired him because of his age. Because the ultimate question
is whether Parker presents enough evidence to allow a reasonable juror
to find that Parker fired him because he was 60—rather than because
Wilbanks struggled to perform his job—the court details Wilbanks’
employment history below.
A. Parker hires Wilbanks
Parker hired Wilbanks (then 55) in late 2017 to be a Senior Buyer
in Parker’s aerospace filtration division. That division produces aerospace
fuel filters and operates in three cities: Colorado Springs, Colorado;
Greensboro, North Carolina; and Sylacauga, Alabama. Wilbanks worked
in Sylacauga. As a Buyer, Wilbanks interfaced with suppliers, submitted
purchase orders, evaluated supplier performance, summarized and
reported information, and so on.
B. Wilbanks’ performance
Parker says that it fired Wilbanks because he struggled to perform
his job year after year, despite being put on a plan to help improve his
performance. The court describes Parker’s evidence by year.
i. 2019 Performance Evaluation
For the 2019 fiscal year, Wilbanks’ then manager, Thomas
Lewandowski, rated Wilbanks’ overall job performance as a 3.44/5.00.
Lewandowski noted that Wilbanks “needs to continue to develop. Key
metrics . . . are not near goal, and inventory levels are not ok on all parts.”
(Doc. 19-1, p. 16). Lewandowski also noted that “Brian is reactive in his
work. Brian does what he is told instead of seeking out what could be done
next,” and “Brian draws flawed or incorrect conclusions from data. Brian
does not examine data sufficiently to make accurate predictions.” (Doc.
19-2, p. 67–69). Wilbanks was around 57 years old at the time.
ii. 2020 and 2021 Performance Evaluations
In the fall of that same year, Wilbanks started reporting to Alecia
Rice, the aerospace filtration division’s Supply Chain Manager. Rice rated
Wilbanks’ overall performance for fiscal year 2020 as a 3.13/5.0. The next
fiscal year, Rice lowered Wilbanks’ performance rating to a 2.89/5.0. Rice
noted areas in which Wilbanks needed to improve while also
acknowledging the COVID-related challenges of 2020.
iii. 2022 Performance Evaluation
After issuing Wilbanks’ 2021 performance evaluation, Rice started
highlighting areas that needed improvement. For instance, in June 2022,
Rice emailed Wilbanks a list of tasks he needed to improve on and a
document reiterating Wilbanks’ responsibilities as a Buyer. But at the end
of the 2022 fiscal year, Rice again lowered Wilbanks’ performance rating
to a 2.34/5.0. Rice complained that Wilbanks failed to implement new
methods, ignored problems, and needed to improve his efficiency.
iv. The Performance Improvement Plan
In August 2022, Rice put Wilbanks on a Performance Improvement
Plan (“PIP”), which contained a list of work objectives and goals. Wilbanks
told Wilbanks that he could be fired if he failed to follow the PIP. Rice and
Wilbanks met twice in September 2022 to discuss the PIP. At both
meetings, Rice highlighted things Wilbanks had inaccurately reported or
priced.
Rice took medical leave shortly after the second PIP meeting. While
Rice was on leave, Wilbanks met with Manager Clayton James about his
work performance. When Rice returned to work in November, Rice and
Wilbanks resumed their PIP meetings. At one December PIP meeting,
Rice pointed out that Wilbanks spent too much time creating MRE reports
and made several suggestions of how Wilbanks could decrease the time
spent working on these reports. Later that month, Rice emailed Wilbanks
(who annotated) the results of his PIP:
#
Briar, ensues
On 08/24/2022, we began a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) based on an
underperforming performance assessment and unacceptable levels of work performance. This
letter is to docurnent the results and conclusions associated with that plan.
Below is the summary of the areas for improvement and corresponding results:
1) Open Order Reports - Open order reports are to be sent to each supplier weekly and
purchase order due dates to be updated in MSS once supplier's response is received,
* Open orders have been sent to suppliers and Brian has identified this is a time-
consuming activity.
2) MRE Report - MRE Report to be worked fully each week. POs need to be placed timely,
and date changes made to expedite or defer POs based on MSS information, historical
Usage and expected future volumes.
* MRE report is being reviewed and need to focus on cleaning up MSS data to drive □□
accurate MRE messages. No suggestions on improvement to the MSS data, MRE hy
report or assistance needed have been identified. Fipat PrP was te a Sebie □□□
3) PO Updates - anytime a price changes or date change se eS Pa Updated.
Make sure past due PO dates are updated to realistic dates.
« Some past due POs are still outstanding; however improvement has been noted in
this area.
4) Improved Follow-Up on action items — if an item is assigned to you, it must be completed in
a timely manner, or escalated if you need assistance. Find and create a tracking mechanism
fo help you stay on top of the actions you need to complete.
* During this time period, DSCM and Plant Manager were out on medical leave and □
this activity has been hard to evaluate, No critical issues were escalated to
leadership during this time. PM was hee hor wasoah PrP muckoas sete hefd,
3) Part Shortages — improve the early identification and mitigation of part shortages. Use
MRE tools and system information to be proactive about handling part shortages. Once a
shortage is known, you must be proactive and assertive when working with the supplier,
» Improvement has been made in this area and the number of shortages has been
reduced. Itis unclear what process was changed to improve in this area.
6) Inventory — keep a close eye on what items you are bringing in and make sure we are
holding proper levels of inventory. Walk around the warehouse at least once a month to sea
items we have excess on, need to dispose of, ate...
* Inventory levels need to ba more closely monitored and efforts placed on reduction
activities.
?) Reconcile Issues — research and correct issues that are brought to you by receiving, AP,
your pears, in a timely manner.
* Improvement has been made in this area
8) SC Expectations — review atlached SC Expectations and make sure all critical tems are
completed.
= While some progress on deflation projects has been mada, more focus is needed on
strategic activities such as negotiations, deflation projects, supplier mestings, etc..
(Id., p. 101). Rice concluded her email by stating:
In reviewing your performance since the commencement of your PIP, some improvements have
been made around the areas of concern, however you have not successfully improved your All arig/ana
overall performance to be removed from the improvement plan. There continues to be Regu nawerhs
apprehension surrounding the successful longevity and consistency of the improved behaviar wine Auk,
moving foward. Efforts need te be placed on identifying process improvements, eliminated scl
wasted time throughout the day and ways to make the worklaad more manageable. Working
60+ hours @ week to complete these requirements is not the solution.
As a valued team member, we are providing you the opportunity to extend the plan based on
the lack of significant improvement:
= You will remain in your current role as a Buyer and will be extending the Performance
Improvement Plan thru 2/28/2023
= twill continue to be your responsibility to schecule update meetings to be held with your
manager to review your progress.
At the end of this extension, if your performance has not met expectations, it may lead te
further corrective action, up to and including termination from the employment of Parker
Hannifin,
7 As & reminder, if at any time during this process you ara removed from the performance
improvement plan due to salisfactory performance, a recurrence of the performance
deficiency within a twelve (12) month period from the date you were removed from the
performance improvement plan may result in your being terminated from the
employment of Parker Hannifin,
Sincerely,
Alecia Rice
Ud., p. 2). Rice and Wilbanks met in early January 2023 to discuss
Wilbanks’ annotations and the PIP extension. The pair then met six more
times over the next two months to discuss Wilbanks’ poor job performance
and lack of improvement. Rice continually expressed concerns and
dissatisfaction with Wilbanks’ job performance, including
e The inaccuracy and incompleteness of Wilbanks’ MRE
reports and CDF analysis,
e Wilbanks’ wasted time,
e The lack of updated MSS data,
e Wilbanks’ dependence on other employees.
e A failure to timely escalate or take action on POs,
e Spreadsheet inaccuracies,
e Order mismanagement, and so on.
After one of their February 2023 meetings, Wilbanks sent Rice a
revised MRE report attached to the following email:
The way you showed me will really streamline the
push-outs, and pull in, way in advance. A while back
in the past I was using the MRE, and filtering out
something, and you said DON’T DO THAT, it’ll mess
it up, so I’ve been leery of filtering in the MRE, until
now. […] I can see where you would think I’m clueless
now. Working the MRE like this will really streamline
material flow, and inventory overages. I’m actually
really looking forward to coming in and getting this
straight, so moving forward will be great.
(Id., p. 110). Rice forwarded this email to Anna Namvansy, a Parker
Human Resource office. A few weeks later, Rice recommended Wilbanks’
termination. Parker officially fired Rice in March 2023.
C. Lawsuit
Wilbanks then sued Parker under the ADEA, claiming that Parker
(through Wilbanks’ supervisor, Rice) fired him because of his age. In his
deposition, Wilbanks described his claim like this:
Q: Why do you believe [you were discriminated
against]?
A: Because, I mean, I think [Rice’s] ultimate goal was
for me to be terminated.
Q: Why do you believe that?
A: Because of my age.
Q: Did she ever say anything that suggested to you
that her ultimate goal was to have you terminated?
A: No.
Q: So why do you think that?
A: Through the crushing amount of work she gave me,
through her attitude towards me, through putting me
through a PIP I successfully finished, and then
putting me on another one because she wasn’t there
to execute me.
(Doc. 19-1, p. 40). According to Wilbanks, Rice singled him out by
requiring him to track anticipated projects and their estimated monthly
cost savings, (id., p. 28); increased his workload while younger employees’
workloads remained the same, (id.); and treated him differently than
younger employees like Kailey Lyon, a Supply Chain Leadership
Development Associate. (Doc. 1, p. 5–6).
Wilbanks also claims that Rice spoke aggressively to him during
team meetings beginning around the end of 2021. (Doc. 19-1, p. 22).
Wilbanks alleges that Rice once made a comment during a staff meeting
stating “good, no gray” after scanning the attendees. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Wilbanks argues that Rice’s statement was derogatory towards older
employees. See infra, Discussion Part B.
Parker now asks the court to grant summary judgment in its favor.
(Doc. 18).
STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party
shows there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is
material if it is one that might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To avoid summary
judgment, the nonmoving party must go beyond mere allegations to offer
specific facts creating a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see
also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 324. In reviewing a motion for summary
judgment, this court views the facts and draws all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Cuesta v. Sch.
Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 285 F.3d 962, 966 (11th Cir. 2002).
DISCUSSION
The parties argue their positions under the three-step, burden-
shifting McDonnell Douglas framework:
1. Did Wilbanks present a prima facie case of age discrimination?
2. If so, did Parker present a reason for firing Wilbanks that did
not involve his age?
3. If so, did Wilbanks present evidence that Parker’s age-neutral
reason was pretext?
They do so with good reason. Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit has
used McDonnell Douglas “to evaluate ADEA claims that are based upon
circumstantial evidence of discrimination.” Chapman v. Al Transport, 229
F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
But the Circuit Court has recently steered away from McDonnell
Douglas and back toward Rule 56 by asking this simple question: Is there
a “sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to find that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff?” Tynes v. Fla. Dep’t of
Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939, 947 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing Cleveland v. Home
Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2004)). The court
follows the trend and applies Rule 56, not McDonnell Douglas.
A. Parker’s evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason
Rule 56(a) starts with the moving party’s burden, so this court
follows suit. The ADEA prohibits Parker from terminating Wilbanks
“because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623. Parker says that age
played no part in its decision to fire Wilbanks; rather, Parker says that
Rice fired Wilbanks because Wilbanks struggled to perform his job,
despite Rice’s efforts to help Wilbanks improve his performance.
Rule 56(c)(1) requires Parker to support its nondiscriminatory
reason by submitting evidence that would prove that reason at trial. Rice
testified that she decided to fire Wilbanks “due to failure to perform
against the areas identified on his performance improvement plan” and
that she told Wilbanks this was the reason for his termination. (Doc. 19-
3, p. 38). As detailed in the Background section, Parker offers testimonial
and documentary support for this nondiscriminatory reason. For example:
• Wilbanks testified that he did not perform all the essential
functions of his job, see (doc. 19-1, p.12–13);
• Wilbanks’ performance rating declined every year from 2019 to
2022, see (doc. 19-2, p. 68–88);
• Because of his poor scores, Rice placed Wilbanks on a PIP, see
(id., p. 95); which Rice extended after Wilbanks failed to improve,
see (doc. 19-2, p. 101–02); and,
• Rice met with Wilbanks at least nine times between August 2022
and his termination in March 2023, each time trying to work
with Wilbanks towards improvement. (Doc. 20, p. 15).
This is enough evidence to support a finding that Parker fired Wilbanks
because of his performance—i.e., a reason that does not violate the ADEA.
Parker is therefore entitled to summary judgment unless Wilbanks offers
evidence that supports a different, discriminatory reason that Parker
fired him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
B. Wilbanks’ evidence of discrimination
To survive Parker’s Rule 56 motion, Rule 56(c) requires Wilbanks
to offer enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact—i.e.,
Wilbanks must provide evidence (not just speculation) that would allow a
reasonable juror to find that Parker fired Wilbanks “because of [his] age.”
29 U.S.C. § 623, not because of his performance.
In his response brief (doc. 24), Wilbanks offers three facts that he
claims prove that age, not performance, was the reason Rice wanted to
fire him. The court decides below whether any presents evidence that
Parker (through Rice) fired Wilbanks “because of his age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623.
A. Rice preferred Lyons
Wilbanks says that evidence shows that Rice wanted to replace him
with a younger Buyer, Kailey Lyon, who was in her 20s:
Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff establish pretext.
Plaintiff successfully worked for Defendant for several years
prior to Rice coming on board and prior to his termination.
He received “Performing” scores on his reviews, indicating
that he was meeting expectations. It all went south when
Rice hired a young intern, Kailey Lyon, as a Buyer in July
2022. Lyon was over 30 years younger than Plaintiff.
Around the same time the young intern was hired into a
permanent position, Rice gave Wilbanks his first poor
evaluation and began to treat him differently. It was during
this time that Rice began speaking in an abrupt and harsh
manner toward Wilbanks. She also increased his workload,
causing him to work 50 or 60 hours per week. She also placed
Wilbanks on a PIP and added numerous tasks to his job. The
purpose of the PIP was to build a record to terminate
Plaintiff.
(Doc. 24, p. 21). But Lyons’ promotion to Buyer at the Greensboro office in
2022 fails to create a genuine question whether Rice fired Wilbanks from
the Sylacauga office because of his age in 2023 for a couple of reasons.
First, Rice didn’t hire Lyons; Lyons finished a two-year program for
college graduates and thus became a full-time employee. Further, Lyons
worked in the Greensboro office, not Sylacauga where Wilbanks worked;
Lyons had no disciplinary or performance issues; and there’s no evidence
that Rice considered moving Lyons to Sylacauga to replace Wilbanks—
which leads to the second point.
Second, Lyons didn’t take Wilbanks’ job after Rice fired him. Lyons
and another development program employee (Jackson Bandy) performed
many of Wilbanks’ duties while Rice looked for Wilbanks’ replacement.
But Rice ultimately hired 40-year-old Richard Rhodes to become the
Sylacauga-based Buyer, thus belying Wilbanks’ assertion that Rice fired
him so she could hire Lyons because she was in her twenties.
Third, Wilbanks’ problems started long before Lyons finished her
development program in July 2022. As the chart below shows, Wilbanks’
performance score dropped all four years before Lyons became a Buyer in
July 2022 (the red line):
Wilbanks' Performance Evaluations
a __ 3
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
See (doc. 19-2, p.83) (showing that the FY2022 evaluation period ran from
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022).
In short, Wilbanks fails to link Lyons’ elevation from Development
Associate to Buyer in July 2022 to Rice firing Wilbanks in March 2023. So
Lyons’ elevation to Buyer in the Greensboro office fails to properly support
Wilbanks’ assertion that Rice decided to fire him because of his age, rather
than his performance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
B. Rice says “Good, no gray”
Wilbanks next argues that, during a video Teams meeting with
many Parker employees, Rice said “good, no gray” and that comment could
allow a reasonable juror to find that Rice did not like older employees.
1. Wilbanks’ testimony: Here is how Wilbanks described the call:
Q: But you don’t remember any examples of things that she
said?
A: Like there was one incident where we were in Teams, in
a big Teams meeting, and there were a lot of us there.
11
And as the — before the — as the meeting was getting
started — everybody was in the Teams meeting and you
could see all the faces. And right there at the start of the
meeting she said, Good, no gray. And I -- and I thought
what does that, you know -- but I – that’s when I realized
that most of the new people in there were young people,
you know. And there was like only a couple of us that
were -- that were older. And I thought, that’s interesting.
Q: What did you perceive Ms. Rice to mean when she said
‘good, no gray’?
A: That there were less older people in the meeting.
(Doc. 19-1, pp. 22-23).
But Wilbanks was not with Rice when she made the comment, so he
admitted that he could not see what Rice saw on her screen. (Id., p. 23).
Wilbanks also admitted that he did not know what Rice meant when she
made the comment. (Id.). And Wilbanks testified that “I don’t think it was
directed at any individual.” (Id.).
When asked about the comment later, Wilbanks testified that no
one at Parker talked negatively about older employees:
Q: Other than the ‘good, no gray’ comment, did you ever hear
anyone at Parker say anything that you perceived as
negative about age?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever hear anyone at Parker say anything negative
about older people or older employees generally?
A: Not to my remembrance.
Q: Did anyone ever tell you that they had heard a negative
comment made at Parker about age?
A: Not that I remember.
(Doc. 19-1, p. 53).
2. Rice’s response: Wilbanks deposed Rice two days after testifying
that Rice made the “gray” comment but did not ask her about it. (Doc. 19-
3). So Rice later provided this declaration that flatly denies the comment:
Mr. Wilbanks alleges that I made a comment during a Zoom
meeting stating “good, no gray.” I did not make any such
comment during any Zoom meeting and do not know what
Mr. Wilbanks is referring to.
(Doc. 19-6, p. 9). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (allowing declarations that set
out admissible facts about which the witness is competent to testify).
3. Analysis: Because Wilbanks is the non-moving party, the court
must assume that Rice made the “good, no gray” comment. That said, a
comment that there is “no gray” at the start of a video call could be about
many things that have nothing to do with Rice’s motivation to fire
Wilbanks some time in the future. As Wilbanks admits, he can only guess
that Rice meant something derogatory toward older employees because he
was not with Rice; he does not know what Rice saw on her screen; and he
does not know what Rice was thinking. Further, Wilbanks was on the call,
making it less likely the comment was derogatory toward him.
“[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is only a guess or a possibility,
for such an inference is not based on the evidence but is pure conjecture
and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 1982) (quotation omitted). And “[s]peculation does not
create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the
demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment.” Cordoba v.
Dillard’s Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)
(quotation omitted).
Because Wilbanks relies on speculation to link Rice’s “good, no gray”
comment to Rice’s decision to fire him, and Wilbanks could not point to
any other comment about age during his five-year employment, Wilbanks
fails to properly support his assertion that Rice fired him because she was
prejudiced against older employees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
C. Wilbanks’ replacement
Finally, Wilbanks points out that his replacement, Richard Rhodes
(40), was 20 years younger than he was (60). Wilbanks is correct that this
20-year age gap makes one of the requisite showings of a prima facie case
under McDonnell Douglas. See, e.g., Liebman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 808
F.3d 1294, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (seven-year gap satisfied
Step 1’s ‘substantially younger’ element); Damon v. Fleming
Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1360 (11th Cir. 1999) (five-year
gap was sufficient); Reed v. Forney Indus., Inc., 800 Fed. App’x 782, 786-
87 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (seven-year gap was sufficient).
But whether you apply McDonnell Douglas or Rule 56, an age gap
alone is not enough to make the ultimate showing that Rice decided to fire
Wilbanks “because of [his] age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623. Once Parker offered
enough evidence to support an age-neutral reason for firing Wilbanks,
Rule 56(c) required Wilbanks to counter with evidence that his age caused
his firing. Pointing to an age gap alone is not enough. For example, in
Reed, the Circuit Court found that the district court erred when it found
that replacing a 58-year-old with a 51-year-old failed to make a prima
facie case in Step One of McDonnell Douglas. Reed, 800 Fed. App’x at 786.
Yet, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s granting of summary
judgment because “while this age difference is sufficient to make out a
prima facie case of age discrimination, it is not sufficient to show
discriminatory intent.” Id. (citing Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d
1466, 1471 (11th Cir. 1991)).
Without more, Rice’s decision to replace Wilbanks with a 40-year-
old fails to support a finding that Rice fired Wilbanks because he was 60.
Put another way, there is no evidence that would support a finding that—
faced with Wilbanks’ performance record before and after the PIP—Rice
would have retained Wilbanks if he was 40 rather than 60. As a result,
the court finds that the age gap between Wilbanks and his replacement
fails to properly support Wilbanks’ assertion that Rice fired him “because
of [his] age,” 29 U.S.C. § 623, not his performance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
—
Whether Rice was right or wrong about Wilbanks’ ability to perform
his job is beside the point. While Wilbanks may think that Rice’s judgment
of his performance was wrong, or that she stacked the deck against him,
the ADEA does not allow Wilbanks (or jurors by extension) to second-
guess Rice’s business decision unless it was motivated by age. As the
Circuit Court put it:
federal courts ‘do not sit as a super-personnel department
that reexamines an entity’s business decisions. No matter
how medieval a firm’s practices, no matter how high-handed
its decisional process, no matter how mistaken the firm’s
managers, the ADEA does not interfere. Rather our inquiry
is limited to whether the employer gave an honest
explanation of its behavior.’
Chapman, 229 F. 3d at 1030 (quoting Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939
F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir.1991)).
Parker satisfied its burden of providing evidence that could prove it
fired Wilbanks because of his performance. Wilbanks offers no evidence
that would allow a reasonable juror to instead find that Rice fired him
“because of [his] age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623. Because Wilbanks fails to properly
support his fact assertion that Parker fired him because of his age, there
is no genuine issue of fact to try, making summary judgment appropriate
under Rules 56(a) and 56(e)(3).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court GRANTS Parker’s motion
for summary judgment. (Doc. 18). The court will enter a separate
order consistent with this opinion that grants Parker judgment and
closes this case.
DONE and ORDERED on May 7, 2025.
COREY L. MAZE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16