# Phillip Smith v. Union County Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 14, 2016 · 645 F. App'x 242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3194399

## Case

- **Full name:** Phillip SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 14, 2016
- **Citations:** 645 F. App'x 242
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Agee, Wynn, Harris
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3194399

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1319

PHILLIP SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00707-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 14, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirk J. Angel, THE ANGEL LAW FIRM, PLLC, Concord, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Katherine T. Armstrong, William C.
Robinson, ROBINSON, ELLIOTT & SMITH, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Phillip Smith appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Smith’s former employer in this Americans

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action. Smith raises two issues

on appeal: (1) whether the district court improperly credited

the employer’s evidence and failed to properly evaluate evidence

offered by Smith regarding pre-offer medical inquiry under the

ADA; and (2) whether the district court failed to view key

evidence in the light most favorable to Smith in granting

summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Smith v. Union Cty. Bd. of Educ., No.

3:13-cv-00707-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. March 5, 2015) (stating reasons

on the record at the hearing on March 4, 2015); see Myers v.

Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that a

litigant’s medical conditions precluded him from being a bus

driver in his ADA discrimination action). 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3194399. Public record. Not legal advice.