Propst v. HWS Co. (148 F. Supp. 3d 506, 2015)

ORDER

Richard L. Voorhees, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16), Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Declaration of William Smith (Doc. No. 17), and Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Declaration of Jimmie Link (Doc. No. 18). Because the parties’ submissions are filed and pending, they are now each ripe for this Court’s review.

After a thorough examination of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicablé law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) and DENIES Plaintiffs Motions to Strike. Accordingly judgment shall be entered by the Clerk in favor of the Defendants for the reasons discussed more thoroughly below.

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Before analyzing the merits of the Defendants’ Motion, the Court must first discuss the Plaintiffs motions to strike the declarations of William Smith and Jimmie Link — declarations which the Defendants submitted in support of their Motion. See [Doc. No. 17]; [Doc. No. 18]. In his motions to strike, the Plaintiff raises numerous argumentative objections to the Defendants’ submissions. The Court declines to address each of the Plaintiffs challenges, or to issue a separate order respecting the same, for a-variety of reasons. First and foremost,' a slew of Plaintiffs objections (and Defendants’ submissions) are wholly irrelevant to the ultimate issues pending before the Court. The parties have seemingly gone to great léngths to place before this Court every fact produced during discovery, either in' support of Defendants’ Motion or in opposition to it, whether those facts are relevant to the Motion or not. The parties are reminded that, on a motion for summary judgment, the only matter of. consequence is whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). The Court does not concern itself with irrelevant matters — such as, for example, the history of Hickory White since the early 1900s — and neither should the parties. Because the Court is fully capable of trimming the fat from the parties’ briefs, the Court declines to engage in an exhaustive analysis of each and every objection made to the Defendants’ evidentiary submissions. See, e.g., Wane v. Loan Corp., 926 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1317-18 (M.D.Fla.2013) (“This Court is capable of separating the wheat from the chaff on a motion for summary judgment ....”); Jennison v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3352449, at *3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85623, at *9-10 (N.D.N.Y.2011); Carone v. Mascolo, 573 F.Supp.2d 575, 580 (D.Conn.2008) (“The parties to an action should have faith that the court knows the difference between admissible and non-admissible evidence, and would not base a summary judgment decision simply upon the self-serving ipse dixit of a particular party.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); accord Smith v. N.Y. Times, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21013, at *5 (D.S.C.1996) (“Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1987))); Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 123 n. 2 (D.Md. 1981) (noting that the Court is under no “duty to expend [its] resources by sorting through irrelevant submissions.”).

Second, throughout the motions to strike, the Plaintiff has attempted to wedge-in additional summary judgment arguments that were not expressly contained in, or elaborated upon, in his opposition brief to the Defendants’ Motion. “It is not this court’s responsibility to research and construct the parties’ arguments[.]” See Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110, 1114 (7th Cir.2011). Aside from the fact that, for all practical purposes, this type of “incorporation by reference” allows the Plaintiff to skirt the page limitations imposed by this Court’s local rules, see LCvR 7.1(D), W.D.N.C., Plaintiff has essentially asked this Court to read everything it has filed and, after doing so, construct a coherent argument against the Defendants’ Motion — a task which the Plaintiff was obligated to do within his opposition brief. Accordingly, the Court will only consider Plaintiffs arguments against summary judgment to the extent they appear in Plaintiffs opposition brief, unless, as will be highlighted below, the Court considers a specific objection to evidentiary submissions on which the Court relies in ruling on the Defendants’ Motion.

Third, to the extent the voluminous, record contains disputes of fact, the Court will assume that those disputes are specifically highlighted by the parties’ summary judgment briefs. The Court will not play “archaeologist with the record,” Arkin v. Bennett, 282 F.Supp.2d 24, 33 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), by setting out on its own treasure hunt to discover issues of fact that the parties should have brought to its attention through specific, consolidated, and concise briefing. See, e.g., Garmin Ltd. v. TomTom, Inc., 468 F.Supp.2d 988, 1000 (W.D.Wis.2006) (“A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must show its whole hand[.]”); see also Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir.2005) (“Summary judgment is not a dress rehearsal or practice run; it is the ‘put up or shut up’ moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would (convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Respirontes, Inc. v. Invacare Corp., 2008 WL 111983, at *4, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1174, at *10-11 (W.D.Pa.2008); accord Robinson v. Prince George’s Cnty., 465 Fed.Appx. 238, 240 (4th Cir.2012) (“The nonmovant must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, but must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Finally, a motion to strike is no longer the favored (or authorized) method of challenging the inadmissible nature of evidentiary submissions at the summary judgment stage. Since the 2010 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to strike is technically not available to motions for summary judgment; rather, courts should treat the issues raised by süch a motion as objections to the evidence and, if the Court finds the objections have merit, the improper evidence may simply be. disregarded by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c)(2) (providing that a party “may object” that the “material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form admissible in evidence”); accord Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Adv. Comm. Notes (2010 Amendments, Subdivision (c)); see also, e.g., OFI Int’l, Inc. v. Port Newark Refrigerated Warehouse, 2015 WL 140134, at *1-2, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2926, at *2-3 (D.N.J.2015); Hall v. Louisiana, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102852 (M.D.La.2014); Chase v. Ace Hardware Corp., 2014 WL 517488, at *7-3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15525, at *21-22 (S.D.Ala. 2014); Wanamaker v. Town of Westport Bd. of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101849, at *2-6 (D.Conn.2013); Adams v. Valega’s Prof. Home Cleaning, Inc., 2012 WL 5386028, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157550 (N.D.Ohio 2012) (collecting cases); Ankney v. Wakefield, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64628 (W.D.Pa.2012). The objection procedure adopted by the 2010 amendment is akin to an objection made at trial, and there is no longer a need to file a separate motion to strike. Instead, unless a local rule or standing order specifies otherwise, the parties are to make their evidentiary objections within their summary judgment briefing itself. See Wanamaker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101849, at *5 (“If a party wishes to argue that an asserted material fact is not supported by the evidence, that party may do so in its summary judgment briefing.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Consequently, the Court construes the Plaintiffs motions to strike as mere objections. to certain assertions contained in the various declarations submitted in support of the Defendants’ Motion, To the extent the Court relies on any of the Defendants’ submissions to which an objection has been made, -the Court will discuss the specific objection, as is relevant,.within the body of the Order below. However, to the extent the Plaintiff requests the Court enter an order respecting each and every objection contained in his motions to strike, asks- the Court to considér arguments in opposition to summary judgment that are not specifically contained in Plaintiffs opposition brief, or- requests the Court to scour the voluminous record for Plaintiff, those requests are DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. General

Plaintiff Arnold Propst is a male citizen of Burke County, North Carolina, [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 1 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 1 (Answer). Defendants HWS Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “Hickory White”) and Sherrill Furniture Company (hereinafter, “Sherrill”) are-furniture manufacturers in North Carolina, and employ sufficient numbers of persons to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the ADA- and FMLA. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶2-4 (Complaint); [Doc,. No. 4] at ¶¶2-4 (Answer). Hickory White is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sherrill, having been purchased by Sherrill in 1997. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶5 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 5 (Answer); see also [Doc. No, 16-15] at p. 3 (¶5) (Smith Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 3 (¶ 4) (Monroe Declaration).

Harold W. Sherrill serves as President for both Hickory White and Sherrill Furniture. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 5 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 5 (Answer). William Smith has been employed by Sherrill since 1986. [Doc. No. 16-15] at p;- 2 (¶ 3) (Smith Declaration). He serves as a Vice President of Operations for Sherrill Furniture and is responsible for “all divisions in the Sherrill organization.” [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 3 (¶4) (Smith Declaration); see also [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 3 (Joint Stipulation). As Vice President of Operations, Smith has overseen the maintenance functions throughout the Sherrill organization since 1994. [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 5 (¶ 10) (Smith Declaration). In 1997, Smith assumed second-line supervisory responsibility over Hickory White’s maintenance operations in partnership with Mike Walker, the Hickory White maintenance department supervisor. [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 5 (¶ 11) (Smith Declaration). Mark Bailey is the manager of the Hickory White plant that employed Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 22-23 (Plaintiffs Deposition). Thád Monroe is Sherrill’s Chief Operating Officer. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 2-3 (¶ 3) (Monroe Declaration). Bryan Milleson is Sherrill’s Chief Financial Officer. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 4-5 (¶¶ 9, 12) (Monroe Declaration). Jimmie Link is Hickory White’s human resources manager. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 47 (Plaintiffs Deposition).

2. Plaintiffs Background and Duties

Prior to his employment with Hickory White, Plaintiff was a partner at his family’s construction business for approximately twenty years. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 5 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff eventually left his family’s business and began working for Hickory White in November 1989, as a member of its maintenance department. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 6, 22 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 6, 22 (Answer); [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 5 (Plaintiff Deposition). Hickory White employed Plaintiff and operated the plant where he primarily worked. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 5 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 5 (Answer).

Plaintiff workéd for Hickory White as a general maintenance mechanic. [Doc. No. 16-1] at' p. 12 (Plaintiff Deposition). However, Plaintiffs role as a maintenance mechanic left little room for discretion. He testified that his job duties were constrained to doing “as [he] was told to do as jobs were delegated” and “handed down” to him. [Doc. No. 16-1] át p. 28 (Plaintiff Deposition). Any time a machine broke— Plaintiff was asked to repair it. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 28 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 43 (Plaintiff Deposition). If Hickory White needed inspections completed (e.g., its fire extinguishers needed to be inspected on a monthly basis); Plaintiff was asked to do them. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 28-29 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc, No. 16-2] at pp; 43-45 (Plaintiff Deposition). If general building maintenance was needed (e.g., broken water lines, wall replacement, asphalt and concrete repair, support reinforcement, roof repair), Plaintiff performed the maintenance. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 28-30, 40-42 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 43-45 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 7 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff would also fill-in for absent workers, as needed. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 30 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 43-45 (Plaintiff Deposition).

To accomplish the tasks to which he was assigned, Plaintiff would utilize skills of the trade, such as welding and fabricating. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 42-43 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 43-45 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at pp. 2-7 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff testified that his skills included the following: water and compressed air plumbing; “electrical” and electrical -wiring; carpentry; heavy equipment operation; masonry; boiler tending; running a “wood hog;” replacing broken windows; running computer cables; welding; fabricating; and trimming shrubbery. [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp, 43-46 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at pp. 2-7 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff considered himself to be a skilled and qualified worker. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 16-2] at.p. 17 (Plaintiff Deposition).

3. Plaintiff’s Supervisors

From the early 1990s until sometime between 2010 and 2011, Mike Walker supervised Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 8-9, 11, 20 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff considered Mr. Walker to be a “super boss;” indeed, Plaintiff “never, ever had a problem” with Mr. Walker for the entirety of their working relationship. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 13 (Plaintiff Deposition). Sometime between .2000 and 2009, Mike Walker asked Plaintiff to become his foreman; however, Plaintiff turned down the opportunity because he did not wish to take on the additional responsibilities. [Doc. No.-16-1] at pp. 13-15 (Plaintiff Deposition). After Mr. Walker passed away, William Smith was designated as Plaintiffs “acting” supervisor. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 3 (Joint Stipulation); [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 8-9 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 7 (Smith Deposition).

As Plaintiffs new supervisor, Smith directed Plaintiffs work, and -assumed hiring and firing authority over the department. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 9, 20, 28-30, 33-34 (Plaintiff Deposition); accord [Doc. No. 16-15] at pp. 5,11 (¶¶ 12, 32) (Smith Declaration). Smith primarily maintained an office at Sherrill; however, he would visit Hickory White on occasion to observe the work being performed and to direct Plaintiffs workflow. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 37-41 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 13-(¶ 35) (Smith Declaration) (testifying-that he supervised the maintenance department “remotely” following as acting supervisor). Smith’s presence at Hickory White became more frequent after Walker’s passing, [Doc. No. .16-1] at p.44 (Plaintiff Deposition). Smith directed Plaintiff to perform work related to “business maintenance” and “probably not” much else. See [Doc. No, 16-1] at pp. 41-42 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff testified that his relationship, with. Smith somewhat mirrored .that of his relationship with Walker. He testified that he and Smith “had a good relationship,” they “never, ever had a cross word,” Smith never gave him negative feedback, and Smith “always told” Plaintiff that he “did a good job.” [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 43 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff “like[d]” Smith. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 44 (Plaintiff Deposition). 'Smith testified that Plaintiff was qualified and a “tremendous asset” to his maintenance staff. [Doc. No. 19-7] at p. 4 (Smith Deposition).

. Plaintiffs maintenance role and duties did not change after Mike Walker parsed away. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 20, 30 (Plaintiff Deposition). Rather, Plaintiff “continued to do the sanie things [he] always did” as a member of the maintenance department. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 20 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiffs workload only decreased “when things got slow,” and the decrease in workload affected everyone employed in maintenance — not just Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p..30 (Plaintiff Deposition).. During the 2011 through 2012 period in which Smith was Plaintiffs supervisor, Plaintiff received a pay increase and was not disciplined. [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 2 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 20 (Plaintiff Deposition). Hickory White employed Plaintiff in its maintenance department until his termination on January 18, 2013. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶6 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 6 (Answer); [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 10 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 11] at ¶1 (Joint Stipulation).

4. Plaintiff’s Medical Situation and Requests for Leave

During his employment with Hickory White, Plaintiff took leave from work on four occasions. In the early or mid-2000s, Plaintiff took leave for an operation on his shoulder. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 45 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-7] at p. 2 (Personnel Records). In or around January 2009, Plaintiff took FMLA leave for an operation concerning a deviated septum. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 45-46, 50 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-6] at pp. 3-4 (Personnel Records). In or around January 2012, Plaintiff was on leave as a result of a facial laceration. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 46 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-7] at pp. 3-4 (Personnel Records). Finally, in December 2012 to January 2013, Plaintiff took FMLA leave for surgery on his eyelids to correct a condition which the parties repeatedly describe as “droopy eyelids.” [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 46 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 9, 12 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 9, 12 (Answer). None of Plaintiff’s requests _ for leave were ever denied,' nor did any problems arise from Plaintiffs requests for leave. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 48-49 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff testified that no one from Hickory White treated him negatively as a result of his multiple requests for leave or his medical, issues. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 47-51 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 18-19 (Plaintiff Deposition),

Prior to January 2012, Plaintiff had tolerated “droopy eyelids” for “a couple of years.” [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 1 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiffs condition reportedly affected his peripheral vision; however, it did not affect his ability to perform activities of daily living, his ability to drive, or his ability to perform his work duties. See [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 2-3 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-14] at p. 2 (Letter from Dr. Lowry). Plaintiff never requested any job modifications- from Hickory White as a result of his condition. [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 2 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff attests that his “droopy eyelids.” caused him to suffer “[n]o limitations other than [he] probably [could not] see as well at night.” [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 3 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiffs doctor, Dr. Lowry at Morganton Eye Physicians, recommended, upon Plaintiffs request, that he have corrective outpatient surgery on his eyelids to rectify the condition. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 52 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 1, 7-8 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-14] at p. 2 (Letter from Dr. Lowry) (stating that Plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure named “bilateral upper lid blepharoplasty”).

Once he decided to have corrective surgery, in late-2011 Plaiñtiff directly approached Jimmie Link regarding a possible leave of absence. [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 47-48, 52 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 1 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff told Link that his “droopy eyelids” were affecting his peripheral vision and that he would be undergoing surgery to correct the problem. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 52 (Plaintiff Deposition). Link told Plaintiff that he should “just let [her] know when” the surgery would occur and Hickory White will “give [him] the papers to take to [his] doctor....” [Doc. No. 16-1] at pp. 47-48 (Plaintiff Deposition). Link informed Plaintiff that he would be able to take the leave he needed for the surgery and, “[a]ny time [he] wanted off, just let her know.” See [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 1, 6 (Plaintiff Deposition). After discussing the need for leave with Link, Plaintiff had an accidental fall, which required the eye surgery to be postponed. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 14 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff suffered a facial laceration, which required him to take time off from work in January 2012. See [Doc. No. 19-5] at pp. 9, 14 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 46 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-7] at pp. 3-4 (Personnel Records). The eye surgery was rescheduled for approximately one-year later. [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 14 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 6-7 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff informed Link of the new surgery date and she agreed to let him take FMLA leave. [Doc. No. 19-5] at pp. 14-15 (Plaintiff Deposition).

On or about December 18, 2012, Hickory White provided Plaintiff with a “Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee’s Serious Health Condition (Family and Medical Leave Act)” form, which Plaintiffs doctor completed and returned to Link. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 12 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 12 (Answer); [Doc. No. 16-3] at pp. 2-3 (Personnel Records); [Doc. No. 16-4] at pp. 1-3 (Personnel Records). Based on the information provided by Plaintiff (and his doctor), Link approved Plaintiff to take a leave of absence, commencing December 31, 2012. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 9, 12 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 9, 12 (Answer); [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 6 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff’s eyelid surgery took place on January 3, 2013. [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 7 (Plaintiff Deposition).

Other than Link, Plaintiff discussed his need for surgery only with Shane Crawford. [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 2 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 47 (Plaintiff Deposition) (stating that he did not discuss the leave of absence with William Smith). Plaintiff testified he knew his FMLA rights and would have gone to Link with any questions he may have had. [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 48 (Plaintiff Deposition). Following the surgery, Plaintiff’s eye condition was fully corrected. [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 3 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff was on an approved FMLA leave at the time of the layoff in January 2013. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶¶ 6-7 (Joint Stipulation); [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 10, 14 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 10, 14 (Answer). Sometime between January 15 and 16, 2013, Plaintiff notified Defendant Hickory White that his doctor released him to return to work on or about Monday, January 21, 2013. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 15 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 15 (Answer); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 10-11 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-4] at p. 8 (Crawford Deposition). Plaintiff was terminated on January 18, 2013 and was not restored to the position held prior to his FMLA leave. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶¶ 1, 6-7 (Joint Stipulation); [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 6, 14,18 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 6, 14, 18 (Answer); [Doe. No. 16-13] at p. 24 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 26 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 10 (Plaintiff Deposition).

Neither Hickory White nor Sherrill sent Plaintiff the FMLA eligibility notice, designation notice, or notice of rights and responsibilities (i.e., USDOL Form Nos. WH-381 and 382 or their equivalent), as required by law, in December 2012 or early January 2013. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 18 (Joint Stipulation). Thad Powell had not asked for FMLA leave in the two years prior to the January 2013 layoff. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 9 (Joint Stipulation). Plaintiffs coworker, Ken Chaffin, was also on FMLA leave when he was terminated by Smith through application of the 2013 RIF. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 19-7] at pp. 20-21 (Smith Deposition).

5. The Reduction-In-Force

In the mid-2000s, Hickory White struggled with economic pressures arising from the infiltration of cheap foreign “case-goods” imports in the North Carolina furniture market. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 3 (¶5) (Monroe Declaration). Beginning in 2007, as a result of the economic recession, Hickory White’s finances took a considerable hit. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 3-4 (¶ 6) (Monroe Declaration). Its sales declined drastically between 2007 and 2010, which forced it to implement a variety of cost-saving measures to shore-up its floundering business model. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 4 (¶ 6) (Monroe Declaration). These cost-saving measures included multiple layoffs, [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 4 (¶6) (Monroe Declaration).

While business seemed to improve somewhat between 2010, and 2012, in late-2012 Hickory White’s sales plummeted by fifteen percent (15%) — or $1.25 million — and its costs increased by fifty, percent (50%). [Doc. No. 1.6-18] at pp. 4-5 (¶¶ 7-9) (Monroe Declaration). By November 2012, in order to cauterize the apparent hemorrhage of money, Thad Monroe (Sherrill’s Chief Operating Officer), after consulting with Bryan Milleson (Sherrill’s Chief Financial Officer), recommended that Hickory White implement a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) measure immediately. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 4-5 (¶¶ 9, 12) (Monroe Declaration). Though Monroe’s recommendation was not rejected by leadership, a final decision on the RIF was deferred until January 2013. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 4-5 (¶¶ 7-9, 12) (Monroe Declaration). On January 16, 2013, as a result of Hickory White’s continued financial decline, a final decision was made to implement an RIF at Hickory White. [Doc. No. 16-18] at- p. 5-6 (¶ 13) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 12-13 (Link Deposition). The decision was reached by both Sherrill and Hickory White leadership duping a meeting at Sherrill’s main factory. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 5-6 (¶¶ 13-14) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-16] at pp. 5-7 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 12-13 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No.. 11] at ¶ 2 (Joint Stipulation). Smith was not present at this meeting. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 17) (Monroe Declaration); see [Doc. No. 16-16] at p. 22 (Smith Deposition); see also [Doc. No. 19-7] at pp. 14, 16 (Smith Deposition) (representing that he first learned of the layoff decision when Thad Monroe came to him following the meeting); [Doc. No. 19-6] at p. 13 (Link Deposition) (representing that there was no one from the maintenance department présent at the meeting).

During the January 16,2013 meeting, no decision was made regarding the number of employees to be laid off, the specific employees to be terminated,.the selection criteria to be used, or the specific dollar figure to be saved. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 6 (¶ 15) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc: No. le-le] at pp. 5-7 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 12-13 (Link Deposition)/ Instead, those decisions were mostly left to appropriate managers within Hickory White’s leadership. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 6 (¶ 15) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-16] at pp. 5-7 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 12-13 (Link Deposition). How-ever, because maintenance employees had not been subjected to the immediately preceding layoffs, the meeting’s attendees decided to reduce the employees in Hickory White’s maintenance department by two employees. [Doc. No. 16-18] at pp. 6-7 (¶ 16) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-16] at pp. 5-7 (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at pp. 12-13 (Link Deposition).

Monroe communicated the decision to William Smith sometime between January 16 and 17. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 17) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-16] at p. 7 (Link Déposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at p. 2 (Link Deposition). Monroe advised that “[Smith] was responsible for deciding which [m]aintenance personnel would be retained” and which two individuals would be terminated. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 17) (Monroe Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 10 (Smith'Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-6] at p. 2- (Link Deposition); [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 3 (Joint Stipulation) (“The decision to lay off Plaintiff ... and his co-worker in Hickory White’s Maintenance Department was made by William Smith, a Vice President at Sherrill Furniture.”); accord [Doc. No. 16-15] atp. 14 (¶37) (testifying that because he. was the “first level of management that had been overseeing” the department, Smith “was responsible for deciding which employees would be retained”). However, Monroe did not direct Smith to layoff any particular employee or to utilize any specific criteria. [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 17) (Monroe Declaration).

After being informed that he needed to reduce the maintenance staff by two employees, Smith decided to terminate Plaintiff and another maintenance worker,- Ken Chaffin. [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 48) (Smith Declaration). In coming to his decision, Smith deemed the following criteria important: (1) the ability of the residual maintenance staff to “maintain[ ] the facilities” and continue “day-to-day operation” of the plant, with a de-emphasis on preventative maintenance; (2) the availability of funding for future operations and projects; and (3) his perception of the residual workforce’s skills as compared to the “existing and future needs” of Hickory White’s maintenance department. [Doc. No. 16-13] at p.. 13 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at pp. 14-16 (¶¶ 39-42) (Smith Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 18) (Monroe Declaration). Smith determined that the skill-sets which were most important to satisfying his criteria were as follows: excellence in (1) electrical; (2) electronics and controls; (3) machining; and (4) welding and fabricátion. [Doc. No. 16-15] at pp. 14-15 (¶ 39) (Smith Declaration). Having identified the skills needed to satisfy the criteria he deemed important, Smith evaluated- the five maintenance employees to determine which- of them to select for the layoff. [Doc. No. 16-13] at-p. 13 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition).

At the time of the layoffs, the maintenance department consisted of five maintenance employees: Howard Childress; Shane Crawford; Thad Powell; Arnold Propst; and Ken Chaffin. [Doe. No. 16-15] at p. 16 (¶43) (Smith Declaration); see [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 7 (Smith Deposition). Smith decided that he needed to retain an expert in electrical, and he believed his expert to be Howard Childress^ [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 46) (Smith Declaration). Smith also considered Childress to be a “recognized and trusted leader” within the maintenance department. [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶46) (Smith Declaration). Further, Smith decided that he needed to retain an expert in “electronics and controls,” and he believed his expert to be Shane Crawford. [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc, No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 45) (Smith Declaration). Shane Crawford was also considered by Smith to be a “team leader” in the maintenance department. [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (V 45) (Smith Declaration); accord [Doc. No. 19-4] at p. 5 (Crawford Deposition). Finally, Smith decided that he needed to retain a general machinist and welder who was capable of performing production repairs and fabrication tasks. [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 47) (Smith Declaration). Smith believed the person best capable of performing those tasks to be Thad Powell. [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 47) (Smith Declaration).

Through process of elimination, Smith determined he needed to terminate Plaintiff and Mr. Chaffin, the two remaining maintenance employees. [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 17 (¶ 48) (Smith Declaration). Smith chose Plaintiff and Mr. Chaffin because he “did not have funding for the types of projects” that those employees were working on, and because he considered Chil-dress, Crawford, and Powell’s skills to be better suited, comparatively, for maintaining the Hickory White plant in the future. [Doc. No. 16-3] at p. 21 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at pp. 17-18 (¶¶ 45-49) (Smith Declaration).

In coming to his decision, Smith testified that he relied on his “perception” — i.e., his subjective understanding of Hickory White’s current and future needs, funding levels for the department, and the qualifir cations and skills of the maintenance employees. See, e.g,, [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 22 (Smith Deposition). While contemplating his decision, Smith did not review any personnel records, written performance evaluations, job descriptions, or training records. [Doc No. 16-13] at p. 23 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 15 (¶ 40) (Smith Declaration). Nor did he document his evaluation or decision-making process in writing. See [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 13 (Smith Deposition). Instead, he chose to engage in a subjective evaluation of the relative skills and proficiencies of the maintenance department employees based upon (1) his own personal observations of their work; (2) information communicated to him over the years by Walker (prior to his passing); and (3) information previously communicated to him from team leads and other managers (such as Crawford and Childress). See [Doc. No. 16-15] at p. 15 (¶ 40) (Smith Declaration); [Doc. No. 19-7] at p. 11 (Smith Deposition). At the time of his decision, Smith did not consult with anyone to gather more information or advice regarding the decision he had to make. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 17 (Joint Stipulation). Smith testified, however, that he did not have to consult documents or the views of others because the decision was “obvious” to him based on the facts and economics of the company. [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 23 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-7] at p. 19 (Smith Deposition).

Smith communicated his decision to Plaintiff on January 18, 2013. [Doc. No. 16-13] at p, 24 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 26 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶¶ 6, 18 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶¶ 6, 18 (Answer); [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 10 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 1 (Joint Stipulation). The phone conference included William Smith, Plaintiff, and Jimmie Link. [Doc. No. 16-13] at pp. 24-25 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 19-5] at pp. 26-27 (Plaintiff Deposition); [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 18 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 18 (Answer). Originally, Smith intended to ask Plaintiff to come in and speak with him; however, after prodding by Plaintiff, Smith decided to convey the layoff decision over the phone. [Doc. No. 16-13] at pp. 24-26 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 24-1] at p. 7 (Link Deposition). Link told Plaintiff that he was being termi-natecl because Hickory White instituted a RIF and “[his] name was: on the list to" be laid off ....” [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 10 (Plaintiff Deposition); see [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 26 (Smith Deposition) (“I recall telling him that [Hickory White] [was] having a layoff and that he was — he had been caught in that action.”). Smith represented that Plaintiff was being laid off because Hickory White was no longer “allocating any money to repair roofs.” [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 14 (Plaintiff Deposition). Plaintiff concedes that Smith “may have said some more stuff, but [he] don’t remember.” [Doc. No. 16-2] at p. 13 (Plaintiff Deposition). Smith’s recollection of thé call is similarly hazy. See [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 26 (Smith Deposition) (“I recall the specific conversation, but the specific words, I do not recall.”). In response, Plaintiff told Link and Smith that he did not agree with the decision; however, he did not specify to them why he disagreed. [Doc. No. 16-2] at pp. 10-11, 14-15 (Plaintiff Deposition). As of his last date of active employment, Plaintiff was performing his job duties satisfactorily. [Doc. No. 11] at ¶ 5 (Joint Stipulation).

Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on May 1, 2013. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶ 21 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶21 (Answer). The EEOC issued a “Notice of Rights' to Sue” on January 30, 2014. [Doc. No. 1-1] at ¶23 (Complaint); [Doc. No. 4] at ¶ 23 (Answer). This action commenced soon thereafter. See, generally [Doc. No. 1] (Notice of Removal); [Doc. No. 1-1] (Complaint).

B. Procedural Background

On March 6,2015, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 16].' Defendants seek judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims. In their Motion, the Defendants argue that summary judgment should be entered against. Plaintiff because (1) Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”); (2) Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”); (3) Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of retaliation under the Fainily and Medical Leave'Act (the “FMLA”); (4) even if Plaintiff has established his prima facie cases,' Defendants have offered a legitimate, non-diseriminatory/non-retaliatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination and he cannot demonstrate such reason to be pretext; (5) Plaintiff’s state law claims for wrongful termination under the North Carolina Equal- Employment Practices Act (the “NCEEPA”) fails, for the same reasons as Plaintiffs federal age and disability' discrimination claims; (6) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that’ Defendants unlawfully interfered with his rights under the FMLA; and (7) Plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to certain damages sought by his Complaint.

Each of these issues having been properly and -timely presented, the Court will now discuss and analyze each of the Defendants’ challenges.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to support or oppose a summary judgment motion, a party is required to cite to “materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, ... admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials;” or show “that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (applying former version of Rule 56); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106- S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (same).

- It is well-established that the mere existence of “some” factual disputes will not defeat summary judgment; rather, the dispute presented must be “genuine” and concern “material” facts. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis in original); see also Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir.2008). Only legitimate disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under relevant governing law fall within that category. See Fields v. Verizon Servs. Corp., 493 Fed.Appx. 371, 374 (4th Cir.2012). A dispute is “genuine” if “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir.2012). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Abstract or conjectural doubts, minor discrepancies, and points irrelevant to the “material” facts are not genuine or material and do not cast sufficient doubt on the validity of testimony to preclude the entry of summary judgment. Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297; Hux v. City of Newport News, Va., 451 F.3d 311, 315 (4th Cir.2006). The non-movant cannot demonstrate a triable issue of disputed fact by building one inference upon another. Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297 (citing Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir.1985)). Although it is. certainly true that “the facts - and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” Smith v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc), it is equally true that a court is “well within its discretion in refusing to ferret out the facts that counsel has not bothered to excavate.” Cray Commc’ns. Inc. v. Novatel Computer Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir.1994).

Finally, in employment disputes, such as the one at bar, the Court and the parties must never lose track of the context in which the dispute has arisen. In North Carolina, “absent an employment contract for a definite period of time, both employer and employee are generally-free to terminate their association at any time and without reason.” See, e.g., Head v. Adams Farm Living, Inc.., 775 S.E.2d 904, 909 (2015). Further, there is no general federally protected right to “just cause” protection in pirivate sector employment. Instead, in North Carolina, it is the exception, not the rule, that an employee is vested with a cause of action arising out of the termination of his employment. See Head, 775 S.E.2d at 909 (adhering to the employment-at-will doctrine absent a contractual right or a “public policy exception” which vests the employee with a cause of action). Under federal law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his termination from private. employment was the result of some sort of statutorily prohibited discriminatory animus or the violation of another federally protected right; otherwise federal law will be “converted from one preventing discrimination...., to.one ensuring dismissals only for just cause to all people .... ” See Moore v. Eli Lilly & Co., 990 F.2d 812, 816 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1504-05 (5th Cir.1988)). It is under this rubric that the Court will now consider the arguments presented.

B. Federal ADA Discrimination and FMLA Retaliation Claims

1. Prima Facie Case-

At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff carries the.initial burden of establishing the prima facie elements of his claims for wrongful termination under the ADA and retaliatory discharge under the FMLA. This burden is met by utilizing either direct or circumstantial evidence; specifically, evidence which tends to show the discriminatory or retaliatory motive of the plaintiffs employer. See Fields v. Verizon Servs. Corp., 493 Fed.Appx. 371, 375 (4th Cir.2012); Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir.1997). Here, Defendants have questioned Plaintiffs ability to make-out a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliatory discharge. In response, Plaintiff has brought forth no direct evidence showing that he was terminated as a result of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Therefore, to survive sum mary judgment, Plaintiff “must establish a circumstantial case under the burden shifting framework set forth in [McDonnell Douglas].” Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 375 (applying burden shifting framework to ADA claim in reduction-in-force context) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)); Ranade v. BT Americas, Inc., 581 Fed.Appx. 182, 183 (4th Cir.2014) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to FMLA retaliation claims “because [such] claims are analogous to Title VII retaliation claims”); accord Ennis v. Nat’l Ass’n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th Cir.1995); Nichols v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., 251 F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir.2001).

In the ADA context, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, which requires evidence demonstrating that (1) he was a member of the statutorily-protected class; (2) he was discharged; (3) at the time of his discharge, plaintiff was performing his job at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) his discharge occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. See Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 375-76 n. 4; see also Ennis, 53 F.3d at 58-59. In the FMLA context, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in activity protected by the FMLA; (2) his employer took adverse action against him; and (3) evidence exists which implies that the adverse action was causally connected to plaintiffs protected activity. See Ranade, 581 Fed.Appx. at 183; Mercer v. Arc of Prince Georges Cnty., Inc., 532 Fed.Appx. 392, 399 (4th Cir.2013); Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir.1998).

If a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to satisfy the underlying prima for cie elements of each of his claims, then the burden of production “shifts” to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision to terminate. See Ennis, 53 F.3d at 58 (ADA context); Nichols, 251 F.3d at 502 (FMLA context). “If the defendant meets this burden of production, the presumption created by the prima facie case ‘drops out of the picture,’ and the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving that [he] has been the victim of intentional discrimination [or retaliation].” See Ennis, 53 F.3d at 58 (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 510-11, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993)); Nichols, 251 F.3d at 502 (stating that the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that the defendant’s “proffered explanation is pretext for FMLA retaliation”).

For purposes of this Motion, the Court assumes, without deciding, that Plaintiff has met his prima facie showing of wrongful termination under the ADA and retaliatory discharge under the FMLA. See Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 376; accord Ennis, 53 F.3d at 58; Nichols, 251 F.3d at 502. Thus, pursuant to McDonnell Douglas, Defendants must now satisfy their burden to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision to terminate Plaintiff.

2. Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory/Non-Retaliatory Reason

As stated above, once the Plaintiff meets his prima facie burden, the burden of production then shifts to Defendants. The Defendants’ burden of production is not onerous'; rather, they must only, “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment action.” Ennis, 53 F.3d at 58. Because an employer’s burden is one of production, and not of persuasion, it “is not required to prove [the] absence of a discriminatory motive, but merely articulate some legitimate reason for its action.” EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 941 (4th Cir.1992) (quoting EEOC v. Western Electric Co. Inc., 713 F.2d 1011, 1014 (4th Cir. 1983)).

Defendants have offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Plaintiff from his employment with • Hickory White.. Defendants have shown that Hickory White was suffering substantial financial difficulties at the time Plaintiff was on leave for his eyelid procedure. The significant decline in Hickory White’s financial stability required upper management to adopt a reduction-in-force policy, just as it had done during other financially challenging periods. The Fourth Circuit has commonly held, as have courts within its jurisdiction, that RIFs are legitimate, lawful reasons for terminating an employee. See, e.g., White v. Dalton, 2000 WL 1058979, at *1, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18694, at *1-2 (4th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (“Defendant presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his decision: a reduction-in-force necessitated by declining profits.”); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that a RIF established legitimate nondiscriminatory business reason for employee’s discharge, which employee did not overcome with showing of pretext); Casey v. Plastic Omnium Auto Exterior, LLC, 2013 WL 393941, at *4-5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12985, at *11-12 (D.S.C. 2013); Gibbs v. Smitherman, 2012 WL 6093805, at *4-5, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173776, at *13-14 (E.D.N.C.2012); Gibson v. AT&T Information Sys., Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19264 (M.D.N.C.1991) (summary judgment against ADEA plaintiff because employer offered RIF as legitimate business reason for plaintiffs lay off). Thus, as a general matter, Defendants have stated a lawful and legitimate reason for terminating Plaintiff — through the implementation of a reduction-in-force policy during challenging economic times.

However, case law suggests that an employer must go a bit further in RIF cases than simply pointing to its RIF policy (as a whole) and the financial reasons underlying it — indeed, the employer must offer a legitimate, lawful reason for having applied the RIF policy against the plaintiff/employee. See, generally Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 376-77 (discussing the specific reasoning given for applying Verizon’s RIF policy against the plaintiff — not simply allowing Verizon to satisfy its burden by pointing to the RIF as a whole). Even under this more exacting inquiry, the Defendants have met their burden by offering specific reasons regarding why Hickory White’s RIF policy was applied to Plaintiff.

Smith was told that, to carry out the RIF, he had to terminate two employees in the five-member maintenance department. This determination was reached by upper management (outside of Smith’s presence) because no maintenance workers were dismissed in the immediately preceding layoffs. Ultimately, eight people were terminated during the layoff — two in maintenance' and six in other departments. Smith testified that, -to carry out this command, he established certain criteria to guide his decision. In short, Smith determined that-he needed a residual workforce that would have, what he believed to be, the requisite skill-set to keep the “day-today” operational objectives of Hickory White on track, which comported with the maintenance department’s funding levels and the “current and future” business needs of Hickory White. See [Doc. No. 16-13] at p. 13 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Doc. No. 16-15] at pp. 14-16 (¶¶ 39-42) (Smith Declaration); [Doc. No. 16-18] at p. 7 (¶ 18) (Monroe Declaration). The Fourth Circuit has held that concern for the “existing and future”-operational and business needs of a company is a legitimate and lawful reason for applying an RIF policy. See Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 376; Mereish v. Walker, 359 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.2004); Duke v. Uniroyal Inc., 928 F.2d 1413, 1418 (4th Cir.1991). “Such a strategic business decision constitutes a legally sufficient justification” for an employee’s termination. See Mereish, 359 F.3d at 335. Moreover, “budgetary constraints” have long-offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and non-retaliatory reason for applying a RIF policy. See, e.g., Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 803 (4th Cir.1998).

Having identified the skills and duties relevant to his decision, Smith identified the employees he believed would produce a residual workforce capable of carrying out Hickory White’s operational and business goals within the budgetary constraints caused by its financial predicament. The selected employees — Childress, Crawford, and Powell — were retained; the remaining two maintenance employees — Propst and Chaffin — were terminated. See [Doc. No. 24-2] at p. 5 (Smith Deposition); [Dóc. No. 16-15] at p. 17>(¶¶ 45-47) (Smith Declarar tion). The procedure and consideration employed by Smith is undisputed. The Court finds that Defendants have offered specific, legitimate, and lawful reasons for Plaintiffs termination under the RIF policy. Thus, the presumption of discrimination and retaliation created, by Plaintiffs prima facie case “drops out.” Plaintiff must now bring forth some evidence which creates a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Defendants’ explanation is pretextual in nature. ....

3. Pretext

To withstand Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff -must now bring forth evidence tending to show that •the Defendants’ legitimate and lawful reasons were merely pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation. That is to say, Plaintiff must present some evidence creating a genuine dispute, concerning the truth of the Defendants’.proffered reason for .discharging him, such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the “real reason” underlying Plaintiffs discharge was either (1) his alleged disability; or (2) his lawful use of FMLA leave. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Rowe v. Marley Co., 233 F.3d 825, 830 (4th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs evidence is lacking on both points, and thus his claims must fail.

A plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that the defendant’s explanation is “unworthy of credence” or by “offer[ing] other forms of circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of intentional discrimination.” Dugan v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716, 721 (4th Cir.2002); Wright v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 405 F.Supp.2d 631, 636 (E.D.N.C.2005). If an employer offers inconsistent explanations or justifications concerning its actions, then those inconsistencies are probative of pretext. See EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 852-53 (4th Cir.2001). Mere conjecture and speculation, however, are insufficient to overcome a .summary judgment motion. See Autry v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, 820 F.2d 1384, 1386 (4th Cir.1987); Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 681 F.2d 230, 241-46 (4th Cir.1982); accord Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir.1999). Furthermore, “mere mistakes of fact are not evidence of unlawful discrimination.” See, e.g., Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 215 n. 1 (4th Cir.2004); Clark v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc., 2005 WL 3008511, at *11, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27182, at *40-41 (D.Md.2005).

To prove pretext, a plaintiff must do more than present conclusory allegations of discrimination; rather, “concrete particulars are required.” Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir.1985). More than a “mere ... scintilla of evidence” or the appearance of “some metaphysical doubt” concerning pretext must be presented. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Matsushita Elec., Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.2002); Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir.1997); Tao of Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Analytical Servs. & Materials, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 668, 671 (E.D.Va.2004). However, even if a plaintiff proves that an employer’s proffered reason is false or inconsistent, “there

will be instances where, although the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and set forth sufficient evidence to reject the defendant’s explanation, no rational fact-finder could conclude that the action was discriminatory [or retaliatory].” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097.

Most importantly, this Court does not sit as some sort of general personnel management bureau, burdened with the duty to examine or second guess the ultimate wisdom or folly of an employer’s legitimate business decisions. See Fields, 493 Fed.Appx. at 378-79; Rowe v. Marley, Co., 233 F.3d 825, 831 (4th Cir.2000) (holding an employer’s decision to discharge one employee over another is the type of decision this court is reluctant to second guess); Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248, 272 (4th Cir.2005); Henson v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 277 (4th Cir.1995) (“We have recognized the importance of giving an employer the latitude and autonomy to make business decisions, including "workplace reorganization, as long as the employer does not violate” applicable law.); EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 946 (4th Cir.1992) (“It is not ... the function of this court to second guess the wisdom of business decisions.”). Rather, the Court’s “sole concern” is whether the reason for which the Plaintiff was discharged constituted unlawful discrimination or retaliation. DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 299 (4th Cir.1998). “Thus, when an employer articulates a reason for discharging the [P]laintiff[,] not forbidden by law, it is not [the Court’s] province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason for the [Plaintiffs termination.” DeJarnette, 133 F.3d at 299 (quotations and citations omitted).

In his briefing, Plaintiff attempts to show pretext by asserting a variety of challenges to the Defendants’ RIF explanation. Plaintiff first argues that Defendants’ stated explanation is pretext because it has “evolved” over time and is inconsistent. See [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 11-13, 22-23 (Plaintiffs Response Brief). The Court disagrees. Inconsistencies in an employer’s explanation for its employment decisions is probative of pretext. See, e.g., Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Center, Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 647 (4th Cir.2002) (“The fact that an employer has offered inconsistent post-hoc explanations for its employment "decisions is probative of pretext.”)- (quoting EEOC v. Sears Roebuck, 243 F.3d 846, 852-53 (4th Cir.2001)). However, minor discrepancies or elaborative discussion will not suffice — a plaintiff must point to actual conflicting explanations which relate to the core substance of the employee’s articulated justification. See, e.g., Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F,3d 202, 212 (4th Cir.2014); Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 386 (4th Cir.2011) (finding that pretext is not established “by focusing on minor discrepancies that do not. cast doubt on the explanation’s validity, or by raising points that are wholly irrelevant to it”); Calobrisi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., 2015 WL 1349627, at *4, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37014, at *15 (E.D.Va.2015). “The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held that[, while] inconsistent explanations of employment actions may be probative of pretext[,] different or varying explanations that are not materially inconsistent are not.” See Hunnicutt, v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31695, *19 (D.S.C.2010) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff claims that Smith’s memory of his decision-making process has “evolved” during the time between his January 18, 2013 phone conversation (terminating Plaintiff), his deposition testimony, and the filing of his declaration (made in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment). [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 11-13, 22-23 (Plaintiff’s Response Brief). In support of this position, Plaintiff argues that, in his deposition, Smith testified that he reached his decision by considering only the “lack of funding for the types of. projects” that Plaintiff had been working on, and argues this shows that he did not conduct any “analysis of the skills, abilities or training of [Plaintiff] ... versus Powell or any other Maintenance Mechanic.” [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 11-13, 22-23 (Plaintiffs Response Brief). Plaintiff then contrasts this testimony with Smith’s declaration, which Plaintiff characterizes as “refined.” [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 4, 11, 22-23 (Plaintiffs Response Brief). Plaintiff particularly takes issue with the portion, of Smith’s declaration which characterizes Plaintiff’s welding and machinist skills as “basic” and Powell’s skills as “expert,” even though both were rated “four out of five” in these areas by Smith in a 2008 evaluation. [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 11-13, 22-23 (Plaintiffs Response Brief).

The Court finds that the Defendants “[have] not engaged in the kind of shifting, inconsiste