Opinion ID: 2982611
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The September Bulletin

Text: Lewis challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to rebut NSRC’s asserted rationale for including the CDL requirement in the September job posting, arguing that there 5 No. 14-5226 Lewis v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., et al. were disputed issues of fact that precluded summary judgment. NSRC and Roskovics asserted that they added the CDL requirement because they knew that Paul Jackson, a carman with a CDL, was going to retire by the end of 2009, and they wanted to ensure that NSRC would have sufficient carmen to operate NSRC’s crane truck in case of an emergency. The district court found that this constituted a legitimate business reason for adding the CDL requirement, and that Lewis failed to show that it was pretext. Lewis argues that the district court’s decision was in error because NSRC failed to show that it learned of Jackson’s impending retirement after issuing the June bulletin. According to this argument, if NSRC knew that Jackson was retiring but failed to include a CDL requirement in the bulletin issued in June, that would demonstrate that the requirement was a sham. NSRC has shown, however, that it posted the jobs in the June bulletin to address a backup in the shop, while the September job posting was intended to ensure that there were sufficient carmen who possessed CDLs during each shift. Thus, even if NSRC knew of Jackson’s impending retirement when it issued the June bulletin, the failure to include a CDL requirement in that bulletin would not demonstrate pretext. Lewis further argues that NSRC’s explanation for including the CDL requirement has changed throughout the course of the litigation. “Shifting justifications over time calls the credibility of those justifications into question.” Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579, 592 (6th Cir. 2002). Lewis has failed, however, to show that NSRC’s justifications have shifted. NSRC has consistently asserted that it needed a carman with a CDL to operate a large 6 No. 14-5226 Lewis v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., et al. truck in case of emergencies. The statements that Lewis identifies do not indicate otherwise. Accordingly, this argument fails.