Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DEBORAH MERRITT, 
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.  No. 09-1498

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(6:07-cv-00027-nkm-mfu)

Argued: January 27, 2010

Decided: April 9, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS,
Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkin-
son wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge
Davis joined. Judge Davis wrote a concurring opinion.
2 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Valerie Ann Chastain, VALERIE A.
CHASTAIN, PC, Bedford, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie
Loraine Gantz, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTU-
NITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Sup-
porting Appellant. Robert Craig Wood, MCGUIREWOODS,
LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis,
Acting Associate General Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood,
Assistant General Counsel, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Supporting Appellant. Aaron J. Longo, MCGUIRE-
WOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

OPINION

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Deborah Merritt was a truck driver
employed by defendant-appellee Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc. ("Old Dominion"). After being fired from her job, Merritt
sued Old Dominion in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, alleging sex discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq. Merritt asserted that Old Dominion fired her
due to a discriminatory belief that women were incapable of
performing the duties of her position. In its defense, Old
Dominion claimed that it discharged Merritt instead because
she had failed a physical ability test following an ankle injury.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Old
Dominion, determining that Merritt had produced insufficient
evidence to demonstrate that Old Dominion’s legitimate and
non-discriminatory reason for her termination was "pretext for
discrimination." Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Under the particular circumstances
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 3
here, we think Merritt has presented an issue of triable fact,
and we must accordingly reverse.

I.

We review the facts under the traditional summary judg-
ment standard, giving the benefit of inferences to the non-
moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 254-55 (1986). The defendant, Old Dominion, is a
nationwide trucking company that employs thousands of driv-
ers, including both "Line Haul" drivers and "Pickup and
Delivery" drivers. Line Haul drivers often drive long dis-
tances across state lines, spending some nights and weekends
away from home. Pickup and Delivery drivers, on the other
hand, work more locally and rarely work nights and week-
ends. Also, because Pickup and Delivery drivers pick-up and
unload freight, the job requires more lifting and is physically
more demanding than that of a Line Haul driver. Of Old
Dominion’s workforce of approximately 3100 Pickup and
Delivery drivers, about six are female.

Deborah Merritt’s story is one of a certain grit and perse-
verance. For six years, she was employed by Old Dominion
as a Line Haul driver at its Greensboro, North Carolina and
Waynesboro, Virginia terminals. During her time as a Line
Haul driver, Merritt often made lengthy cross-country trips, to
places like California and Texas, and sometimes logged more
than five hundred miles per day. She performed her duties
without incident or complaint. Eventually, Merritt became
interested in becoming a Pickup and Delivery driver so she
could work more regular hours and spend her nights and
weekends at home. To show Old Dominion that she could
perform the job successfully, she filled in numerous times as
a Pickup and Delivery driver in May 2002. When filling in,
she likewise performed the duties without incident or com-
plaint. In fact, the record reflects that Merritt’s supervisor
found her work as a Pickup and Delivery driver to be fully
4 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
satisfactory and even received compliments from clients
about it.

Shortly thereafter, a permanent Pickup and Delivery posi-
tion became available at Old Dominion’s Lynchburg, Virginia
terminal. Merritt expressed her interest in the position to
Bobby Howard, the Lynchburg terminal manager. Howard
informed Merritt that he lacked the authority to fill the posi-
tion, but that was untrue. In fact, Howard later filled the posi-
tion with a male, who had less truck-driving experience than
Merritt and who had not previously worked for Old Domin-
ion. Merritt continued to fill in temporarily as a Pickup and
Delivery driver during the rest of 2002.

In May 2003, another permanent Pickup and Delivery posi-
tion became available in Lynchburg, and Merritt again
expressed her interest in it to Howard. Yet again, Merritt was
passed over in favor of a less-experienced male driver. When
Merritt asked why she was not hired to fill the positions,
Howard told her that "it had been discussed and it was
decided that they could not let a woman have that position."
Howard also reminded her that "the company did not really
have women drivers in the city [as Pickup and Delivery driv-
ers]." On another occasion, Howard told Merritt that Lemuel
Clayton, Old Dominion’s Regional Vice President, was wor-
ried about hiring a female Pickup and Delivery driver and
"was afraid [a female] would get hurt." On still another occa-
sion, Howard told Merritt that Clayton had concerns about her
being a Pickup and Delivery driver because he "didn’t think
a girl should have that position." Clayton, however, denies the
allegations.

Finally, in March 2004, Old Dominion hired Merritt to fill
a permanent Pickup and Delivery position in the Lynchburg
terminal. Before making the decision to do so, however, How-
ard allegedly asked two male Pickup and Delivery drivers
how they would feel working with a woman, and they
responded they would not have a problem with it. After Mer-
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 5
ritt was hired, she was placed on a ninety-day probationary
period, during which she stood to lose the job if any perfor-
mance problems arose. According to Merritt, this probation-
ary period was unusual, since no male drivers were subject to
anything similar, while according to Clayton, the probationary
period was a standard opportunity afforded to all transferring
employees to allow them to change their minds about the
transfer. In any event, it is uncontradicted that although Mer-
ritt’s duties and pay were those of a Pickup and Delivery
driver, her official job classification was never changed from
Line Haul to Pickup and Delivery driver.

From March 2004 to September 2004, Merritt performed
her Pickup and Delivery duties, by all accounts satisfactorily.
She never had a problem lifting freight or performing the
same duties that male Pickup and Delivery drivers performed,
and she never received any complaints about her work from
management, coworkers, or customers. Despite her positive
record with the company, Steve Godsey, the then Operations’
Manager for the Lynchburg terminal, told a male Pickup and
Delivery driver that he "d[idn’t] see why they brought [Mer-
ritt] here in the first place. This is not a woman’s place."

Then, on September 29, 2004, Merritt suffered an ankle
injury while moving boxes on the job. When Brian Stoddard,
the Vice President of Safety and Personnel at Old Dominion,
learned of Merritt’s injury, he put her in touch with a workers’
compensation representative and several human resources
employees. Merritt’s doctor, Dr. Jay Hopkins, examined Mer-
ritt and diagnosed her with "plantar fasciitis with a superim-
posed strain." Dr. Hopkins put Merritt on light-duty work
until her next appointment with him on December 27, 2004.
Around that same time, Merritt began expressing an interest
in returning to her normal duties, since her ankle was healing
well and she was not having any serious or lingering problems
with it.

Before Merritt’s December 27 doctor appointment, Stod-
dard decided to require Merritt to take a fitness test to assess
6 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
her ability to perform her Pickup and Delivery duties. Accord-
ingly, on December 22, 2004, Old Dominion booked an
appointment for a physical ability test ("PAT") for Merritt to
take on December 28, 2004. The PAT is a full-body test,
divided into six separate components, that evaluates the test
taker’s general strength, agility, and cardiovascular endur-
ance. It is graded on a pass/fail basis. To pass, an employee
must perform various tasks roughly designed to mimic those
required of Line Haul and Pickup and Delivery drivers. The
PAT was created for Old Dominion by an independent com-
pany in 2001 "to be used in the hiring process." Consistent
with this purpose, Old Dominion uses the PAT primarily in
the pre-employment context to evaluate potential hires, but, as
Stoddard himself testified, only on a "very variable" basis.

On December 27, Merritt met with Dr. Hopkins. During
that visit, Dr. Hopkins examined Merritt’s foot and ankle, not-
ing that "her foot [wa]s feeling fine," that the injury was not
a "disabling condition," and that Merritt seemed "to be on the
right track." Dr. Hopkins concluded that "[t]he good news is
that she has had a good response to treatment and I would
have every reason to think that this will do fine." As Dr. Hop-
kins later testified, "there was nothing about Ms. Merritt’s
medical condition which would have prevented her from per-
forming her job duties as a Pickup and Delivery driver for Old
Dominion as of December 27, 2004." Despite a clean bill of
health, Dr. Hopkins followed his standard practice and
released Merritt back to work on a "trial basis," since he "can-
not give the patient’s employer a one hundred percent guaran-
tee."

The day after seeing her doctor, Merritt took the PAT, as
scheduled. Merritt struggled with several segments of the
PAT and received an overall failing grade. According to Mer-
ritt, the tasks with which she had problems were unrelated to
her ankle injury. For example, on one portion of the PAT,
Merritt was unable to place a box of weights on an overhead
shelf simply because the shelf was too high for her (at barely
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 7
over five feet, one inch tall) to reach. On another part of the
PAT, Merritt had difficulty walking backward pulling a cable
due to people bumping into her in a crowded hallway.

After receiving the results of Merritt’s PAT, Stoddard
decided to terminate Merritt’s employment with Old Domin-
ion. It is undisputed that Stoddard alone made the decision to
fire Merritt. Stoddard was also the sole decision maker
responsible for requiring Merritt to take the PAT. In fact, as
Vice President of Safety and Personnel "throughout the entire
company," Stoddard handled all "question[s] about the physi-
cal capability of a driver to perform safely." On February 1,
2005, Merritt’s employment was officially terminated, with
the reason documented on her paperwork as "inability to per-
form job." To replace Merritt, Old Dominion hired male
Pickup and Delivery drivers in the Lynchburg terminal.

In August 2005, Merritt filed a charge of sex discrimination
against Old Dominion with the Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission. Upon issuance of a right-to-sue notice,
Merritt then filed this action in the district court for the West-
ern District of Virginia. She alleged that Old Dominion’s ter-
mination of her employment constituted unlawful
discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In response, Old Dominion claimed
that it had fired Merritt, not because she was a woman, but
because she failed the PAT.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the dis-
trict court granted Old Dominion’s motion for summary judg-
ment and denied Merritt’s. The district court assumed,
without deciding, that Merritt had demonstrated a prima facie
case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). The district court also found that Old Dominion had
satisfied its burden of production under McDonnell Douglas
to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Mer-
ritt’s discharge: "that she failed the PAT, which indicated that
8 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
she did not have the requisite physical strength to safely per-
form her job duties."

The district court, however, determined that Merritt had
failed to carry her ultimate burden of persuasion under
McDonnell Douglas. Specifically, the court found that Merritt
had "failed to prove that [Old Dominion’s reason for firing
her] was a pretext for discrimination, because she has not pro-
duced any evidence that Brian Stoddard, the Old Dominion
employee responsible for Merritt’s discharge, harbored any
discriminatory animus." According to the district court, Mer-
ritt’s "limited circumstantial evidence" simply "[wa]s not suf-
ficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether
Merritt’s failure of the PAT was a pretext for discrimination."
Merritt now appeals.

II.

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate
against an individual on the basis of sex. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1). As one method of establishing a successful
Title VII case, a plaintiff may proceed under the burden-
shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and its progeny. See, e.g., Hill
v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (4th
Cir. 2004) (en banc). Pursuant to this framework, a plaintiff
first must make out a prima facie case of discrimination. Tex.
Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53
(1981). The burden of production then shifts to the employer
to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for
its allegedly discriminatory action. Id. at 253. Finally, if the
employer carries this burden, the plaintiff then has an oppor-
tunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
neutral reasons offered by the employer "were not its true rea-
sons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Id. The final pre-
text inquiry "merges with the ultimate burden of persuading
the court that [the plaintiff] has been the victim of intentional
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 9
discrimination," which at all times remains with the plaintiff.
Id. at 256.

Notwithstanding the intricacies of proof schemes, the core
of every Title VII case remains the same, necessitating resolu-
tion of "the ultimate question of discrimination vel non." U.S.
Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714
(1983). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[t]he ultimate
question in every employment discrimination case involving
a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the
victim of intentional discrimination." Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 153 (2000). Thus,
"[c]ourts must . . . resist the temptation to become so
entwined in the intricacies of the [McDonnell Douglas] proof
scheme that they forget that the scheme exists solely to facili-
tate determination of ‘the ultimate question of discrimination
vel non.’" Proud v. Stone, 945 F.2d 796, 798 (4th Cir. 1991)
(citation omitted).

By the time of appeal especially, the issue boils down to
whether the plaintiff has presented a triable question of inten-
tional discrimination, and "the McDonnell Douglas
framework—with its presumptions and burdens—is no longer
relevant." St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 510
(1993); see also Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 (discussing the
reduced relevance of burden-shifting paradigm once the
employer has met its burden of production); Tex. Dep’t of
Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 n.10 (1981)
(same). As the Supreme Court has made clear, "courts should
[not] treat discrimination differently from other ultimate ques-
tions of fact." U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983). Under this rubric, summary judg-
ment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
10 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
III.

With these principles in place, we turn to the matter at
hand. Here Old Dominion proffers a legitimate, non-
discriminatory justification for discharging Merritt: her failure
of the PAT, "which indicated that she did not have the requi-
site physical strength to safely perform her job duties." Mer-
ritt not surprisingly insists that this asserted rationale was
really a "pretext for discrimination." St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v.
Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993). We think the record as a
whole supports Merritt’s claim that a jury could find that dis-
crimination on the basis of gender was afoot.

A.

To begin, Merritt has introduced ample evidence showing
that Old Dominion’s proferred explanation for the discharge
—Merritt’s failure on the PAT—was "unworthy of credence."
Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256. Two considerations compel this
conclusion. First, the record indicates that Merritt’s ankle
injury was temporary and had healed at the time of her termi-
nation. Merritt’s physician, Dr. Hopkins, testified that as of
December 27, 2004—one day before the PAT—Merritt’s
ankle was fully healed and "doing as well, if not better, . . .
than before her injury." Hopkins also noted that the injury was
not a disabling condition. The district court likewise found
that "Merritt’s injury was temporary" and that "there was no
indication that the injury would prevent her from resuming
her full duties once it healed." Based on her speedy recovery
and sunny prognosis, Merritt felt ready and able to return to
work as soon as possible and expressed her willingness to do
so to Old Dominion. Indeed, as Dr. Hopkins stated, "there
was nothing about Ms. Merritt’s medical condition which
would have prevented her from performing her job duties as
a Pickup and Delivery driver for Old Dominion as of Decem-
ber 27, 2004."1
1
Although Dr. Hopkins released Merritt only on a "trial basis," that
notation, according to Dr. Hopkins, was not indicative of any real limita-
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 11
Yet Old Dominion did not allow Merritt to return to work.
It did not even leave open the possibility that she could return
to work at a later date, for example by providing additional
time for recovery or by waiting for Merritt’s next doctor visit
to resolve ongoing concerns about the injury’s effect on job
performance. Instead, Old Dominion deemed it necessary to
order a full-blown fitness test to assess the effects of an injury
that was neither severe nor long-lasting and then used the
results of that PAT to claim Merritt was physically unable to
perform the job she had been physically performing for
months prior to her minor injury. In doing so, Old Dominion
terminated a good employee who, pre-injury, performed her
job ably and without complaint and who, post-injury, was
both willing and able to report to this same job for work.
These facts, if believed, would allow a trier of fact to think
Old Dominion was simply looking for a reason to get rid of
Merritt.

Second, Old Dominion’s proferred rationale is undermined
by the undisputed fact that the PAT was a general, full-body
physical fitness test not designed to test any body part in par-
ticular. Some of the six segments of the PAT tested overall
strength and agility and some tested cardiovascular endur-
ance, but none directly evaluated Merritt’s ankle. Only one
component of the test, on which Merritt did well, even argu-
ably gave Old Dominion any information regarding the condi-
tion of her ankle. According to an expert on trucking industry
standards, Old Dominion’s use of the PAT on Merritt was
atypical, both because the PAT "was not specific to [Mer-
ritt’s] foot sprain," and because he was "unaware of a single

tions on Merritt’s abilities to return to work but rather part of his standard
practice, based on his reluctance as a medical professional to fully guaran-
tee complete recovery. As Dr. Hopkins further testified, if an employer
indicates that the "trial basis" release is problematic and prevents the
employer from allowing the employee back to work, he will rewrite it
without the notation. Here, Old Dominion never afforded Dr. Hopkins, or
Merritt, such an opportunity.
12 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
instance where any motor carrier had either established a pol-
icy for or had tested injured employees on portions of their
bodies which were not affected by an injury." Unsurprisingly
then, Merritt’s difficulties with the PAT appeared to have
nothing at all to do with her ankle. She struggled with the
"step test" portion, for example, because she was too short to
reach the overhead shelf.

In light of evidence that the PAT was not even designed to
test Merritt’s alleged physical shortcoming, a jury could find
that Old Dominion’s contention—that Merritt’s minor and
temporary injury necessitated her passing the PAT—is spe-
cious. Especially in combination with Merritt’s other evi-
dence, these alleged facts suggest that perhaps Old
Dominion’s neutral reason "w[as] not its true reason[], but
w[as] a pretext for discrimination." Id. at 253.

B.

In this case, Merritt provided evidence not simply of falsity
but of discriminatory intent as well. Specifically, Merritt set
forth evidence that: (1) Old Dominion used the PAT selec-
tively, excusing injured male employees from taking it; and
(2) The employee responsible for requiring the PAT and fir-
ing her, Stoddard, harbored discriminatory animus toward
women insofar as he was responsible for selectively employ-
ing the PAT and was part and parcel of Old Dominion’s wide-
spread resistance to hiring women as Pickup and Delivery
drivers. Based on this evidence, Merritt claims a fact finder
could find in favor of her on the ultimate question of inten-
tional discrimination.

In arguing otherwise, Old Dominion contends that sum-
mary judgment is nonetheless warranted, because it has coun-
tered Merritt’s evidence of discriminatory motive with
evidence so compelling that "no rational factfinder could con-
clude that [its termination of Merritt] was discriminatory."
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 13
148 (2000). It maintains that, contrary to Merritt’s assertions,
the evidence compels the conclusions that: (1) Old Dominion
used the PAT consistently, pursuant to a prudent and neutral
company policy; and (2) Stoddard was himself blameless and
exhibited no discriminatory motive. We shall review those
contentions in turn.

1.

Old Dominion argues that its decision to terminate Merritt
was made pursuant to a uniform and neutrally administered
company policy. Under its alleged policy, any employee,
regardless of gender, must take and pass a PAT if that
employee missed work due to an injury and received anything
less than a complete and unequivocal medical authorization to
return to full duties. Stated differently, a PAT is automatically
required whenever an injured employee receives an ambigu-
ous or conditional release from a physician (i.e., a release on
a "trial basis" or with "light duty" restrictions). According to
Old Dominion, the policy is intended to mitigate the poten-
tially dire consequences of sending injured employees back to
work before they are physically ready. Because the PAT is
triggered by the language of the doctor’s note, a gender-
neutral criterion, Old Dominion argues that its policy conclu-
sively negates a discriminatory intent.

We begin by acknowledging that if indeed Old Dominion
had such a policy and faithfully abided by it, that fact would,
as Old Dominion suggests, be a neutral and legitimate busi-
ness practice. Old Dominion has understandable safety con-
cerns, especially since its employees are responsible for
driving large trucks and carrying heavy freight. A policy of
the sort Old Dominion claims to have is sensible, because it
helps prevent an injured employee from further aggravating
an injury, thereby jeopardizing eventual recovery; ensure that
an injured employee’s job performance is not so impaired as
to endanger public safety, diminish employee morale, or gen-
erate customer complaints; and limit Old Dominion’s poten-
14 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
tial workers’ compensation claims and tort liability.
Moreover, it is not our task to say what policies a company
should or should not adopt, if the policies it does adopt are
gender neutral. See Hawkins v. Pepsico, Inc., 203 F.3d 274,
279 (4th Cir. 2000); EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d
936, 946 (4th Cir. 1992).

The problem with the policy lies not in theory but in prac-
tice. Here, Merritt has advanced evidence suggesting that the
policy does not exist or, alternatively, that it was erratically
implemented. Three considerations inform our conclusion.
First, the policy’s existence is drawn into question by the con-
spicuous lack of evidence in the record concerning it. As both
parties agree, the policy has never been memorialized in writ-
ing. And while an informal policy is no less a policy, it is
curious that no one at the company seemed to be familiar with
even an informal policy. Of eight Old Dominion employees
asked about the matter, all eight denied ever having heard of
the policy. In fact, Stoddard himself—the individual responsi-
ble for deciding whether and when to order PATs and thus
presumably charged with administering the policy—
suggested that Old Dominion did not have an official policy
regarding whether and when to order PATs. Rather, he
explained that if an employee could not perform job duties
because of pain due to an injury, he’s "not necessarily going
to send them for a [physical fitness] test."

Second, the policy’s existence is dubious due to its delayed
emergence in the course of this litigation. Early on, Old
Dominion did not assert a firm policy on when PATs were
ordered, claiming instead that the test was given on an "as
needed basis." Likewise, although Old Dominion noted that it
was "its policy and practice [] not to return a driver to the road
following an injury unless that driver has a complete, unre-
stricted medical clearance," it expressly emphasized Stod-
dard’s discretion, stating that "[w]hen there is a question
about the physical capability of a driver to perform safely,"
Stoddard "must make a decision, based on the facts and cir-
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 15
cumstances presented, about what to do." In making those
decisions, "the varying circumstances must be taken into
account, and each medical report must be handled on a case-
by-case basis." Even before the district court, Old Dominion
did not allege a clear policy, leading the district court to find
that, "Old Dominion admitted that the PAT is given in ‘vary-
ing circumstances’ on a case-by-case basis" and "without a
clear policy on when it is to be used."

It was only late in the game, on appeal and perhaps not
until oral argument before this court, that the policy really
took shape. At that point, Old Dominion began to pivot, argu-
ing that PATs were not required after all on a discretionary,
case-by-case basis but each and every time, without excep-
tion, an injured employee was issued an ambiguous medical
release. But "a factfinder could infer from the late appearance
of [the employer’s] current justification that it is a post-hoc
rationale," "invented for the purposes of litigation," and "not
a legitimate explanation for [its] decision." EEOC v. Sears
Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 853 (4th Cir. 2001).

Third, apart from the paucity of evidence of the policy’s
existence and the policy’s late-blooming appearance, Merritt
has set forth evidence that Old Dominion did not faithfully
adhere to the policy and instead ordered PATs on an uneven
basis. As a general matter, Old Dominion used the PAT
rarely, even as to pre-hires, whom the PAT was designed to
evaluate. In fact, Old Dominion required a paltry four percent
of its Pickup and Delivery drivers to ever take the PAT. Espe-
cially as to injured employees, the test was administered
inconsistently. Although several injured employees received
ambiguous medical releases, there is limited evidence in the
record as to whether Old Dominion implemented the policy
to require them to take and pass PATs as a condition of
returning to work. Only two individuals at Old Dominion
recalled an injured employee taking a physical test, and they
could not remember whether the test was a PAT or some
other test.
16 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
At least two injured employees exempted from the policy’s
reach were males, and their circumstances were similar to
Merritt’s own. Like Merritt, these male drivers missed work
as a result of an injury and received a conditional release from
a physician. Unlike Merritt, both men were allowed to return
to their full duties without passing a PAT. Importantly, in
both cases, Stoddard presumably was the decision maker who
opted against a PAT.2

Gerald Dalton, for instance, had a hernia operation, which
caused him to miss six months of work—about twice the time
Merritt missed. Although his doctor only gave him permission
to return to "light duty" work,3 Stoddard nonetheless returned
him to full duties without a PAT. Additionally, when Donald
Smith missed work due to a shoulder injury, he was issued a
physician’s note that was, by Old Dominion’s own admission,
"not . . . definitive enough." Yet Smith was not required to
take a PAT and instead required only to take a functional
capacity evaluation (FCE). In contrast to the full-body PAT,
the FCE was tailored to his injury, testing the mobility and
strength of his shoulder.

In addition to the differential treatment of male compara-
tors, Old Dominion failed to follow its purported policy even
2
Stoddard testified that he has served as Vice President of Safety and
Personnel "throughout the entire company" for the past eleven or twelve
years, and, as Old Dominion admitted in its responses to interrogatories,
Stoddard was therefore responsible for making all decisions regarding
"question[s] about the physical capability of a driver to perform safely."
When asked whether he is "consulted or informed whenever an Old
Dominion employee is going to have to take [a physical fitness] test,"
Stoddard replied, "I’m the one that makes that decision, so, yeah, I’m
informed. Actually I inform other people."
3
In disputing this evidence, Old Dominion points to a physician’s note
in the record that released Dalton "to regular work w/ splint." That release,
however, relates not to Dalton’s hernia operation but to a separate thumb
injury. Dalton unambiguously testified that after his hernia operation, he
was subject to "light duty" restrictions.
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 17
with regard to Merritt herself. Admittedly, the conditions nec-
essary to trigger a PAT under the purported policy were pres-
ent: Merritt was an injured employee who missed work due
to her injury and received a "trial basis" release from her doc-
tor. However, these conditions were not met at the time Old
Dominion decided to require Merritt’s PAT. Rather, Old
Dominion scheduled Merritt’s PAT five days before she
received a "trial basis" release. Viewing the evidence in Mer-
ritt’s favor, Old Dominion’s decision to have Merritt take and
pass the PAT cannot be explained by the policy at all.

To be sure, Old Dominion claims it scheduled the PAT
because it knew, based on conversations with Merritt’s doc-
tor, that Merritt was going to receive a "trial basis" release.
That view, however, was thrown into question by evidence
that Merritt’s doctor had never communicated with anyone at
Old Dominion concerning his intent to release Merritt on a
"trial basis," whereupon Old Dominion clarified that it knew
Merritt might receive a "trial basis" release and wanted to
schedule the PAT just in case. These variously unsupported,
belated, and shifting rationales for requiring the PAT and
hence discharging Merritt have passed the point of pretext.
See Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 217
n.7 (4th Cir. 2007). While a neutral policy serving Old
Dominion’s legitimate business interests in public and
employee safety could certainly be put in place, a trier of fact
could reasonably find that Old Dominion’s selective applica-
tion and ever-changing rationales for the PAT were designed
to conceal an intent to reserve the plum Pickup and Delivery
positions for male drivers only.

2.

Old Dominion next argues that whatever the sentiments
about women at the company generally, Merritt has failed to
prove that Stoddard himself harbored discriminatory animus
against women. A plaintiff does not need a "smoking gun" to
prove invidious intent, and few plaintiffs will have one.
18 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
Rather, "[c]ircumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but
may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than
direct evidence." Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90,
100 (2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted). This is
not to say that thin cases should go to trial. "[T]he mere exis-
tence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will
not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for sum-
mary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). Rather, factual dis-
putes must be both material and genuine, and district courts
must ensure both conditions are satisfied before sending a
case to trial. Id. at 248; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We think, however, that Merritt has met
the standard.

By utilizing the PAT to assess the physical qualifications of
Merritt but not males similarly situated to her, Stoddard could
be seen by a jury to embrace beliefs that women are unsuited
for some of the more remunerative forms of manual labor
and, once injured, are less resilient in their ability to recover.
To be sure, certain jobs do require attributes of strength and
endurance, and an employer is plainly entitled to assure itself,
through testing or otherwise, that employees can actually per-
form the work for which they are hired. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1607.1 et seq. But this justification is not available to Stod-
dard or to Old Dominion, because Merritt had not only been
performing her Pickup and Delivery duties for months before
her injury, but performing them very well. At least these pro-
ceedings have revealed no blemish on her record, and Old
Dominion does not to this day contend Merritt did not pass
muster. Even were a jury to conclude that Stoddard reacted to
Merritt’s ankle injury out of an allegedly benevolent view that
women were more fragile and thus more profoundly affected
by injuries than their male counterparts, that would fail to
square with Title VII’s mandate, which is to displace percep-
tions based on race, ethnicity, and gender with perceptions
based on such non-discriminatory criteria as capabilities and
qualifications. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424,
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 19
436 (1971) ("Congress has made such qualifications the con-
trolling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex
become irrelevant."). In short, a reasonable fact finder could
look askance at Stoddard’s selective use of the PAT, requiring
Merritt to take the test and exempting men who, like Smith
and Dalton, suffered arguably more debilitating physical set-
backs and missed more work.

We must of course be cautious about attributing to any ulti-
mate decision maker such as Stoddard the most unfortunate
expressions and beliefs of those around him and those who
worked in his employ. See Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics
Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 291 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). It
is regrettable that any distasteful comments will arise in the
workplace, but that cannot mean that the actual decision
maker is impugned thereby. It is the decision maker’s intent
that remains crucial, and in the absence of a clear nexus with
the employment decision in question, the materiality of stray
or isolated remarks is substantially reduced. See McCarthy v.
Kemper Life Ins. Cos., 924 F.2d 683, 686-87 (7th Cir. 1991).
But that nexus existed here. It is not unfair to observe that the
corporate culture evinced a very specific yet pervasive aver-
sion to the idea of female Pickup and Delivery drivers. Old
Dominion employees, of all ranks, seemed to share a view
that women were unfit for that position. A regional vice presi-
dent remarked, for instance, that he "didn’t think a girl should
have that [Pickup and Delivery] position." He also worried
that women were more injury-prone, explaining that he did
not want to hire a female Pickup and Delivery driver because
he "was afraid [she] would get hurt." An operations’ manager
stated, "[t]his is not a woman’s place." A terminal manager
forthrightly acknowledged the company’s reluctance to hiring
female Pickup and Delivery drivers, noting that "the company
did not really have women [Pickup and Delivery] drivers,"
and that Merritt was passed over because "it was decided that
[the company] could not let a woman have that position."

While the views of others are no proof of the views of
Stoddard, at some point the corporate environment in which
20 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
he worked places Stoddard’s own selective use of the PAT in
Merritt’s case in a less neutral context. In Lettieri v. Equant,
Inc., 478 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2007), for example, we noted
that the plaintiff had put forward the kind of "‘evidence that
clearly indicates a discriminatory attitude at the workplace
and . . . illustrate[s] a nexus between that negative attitude and
the employment action.’" Id. (quoting Brinkley v. Harbour
Rec. Club, 180 F.3d 598, 608 (4th Cir. 1999)). We accord-
ingly deemed the plaintiff’s "powerful evidence showing a
discriminatory attitude at [her company of employment]
toward female managers" sufficient to "allow a trier of fact to
conclude that these discriminatory attitudes led to [plaintiff’s]
ultimate termination." Id. Likewise here.

Female Pickup and Delivery drivers were rare, with only
six identified in a workforce of over 3000 and with Merritt the
only female in her terminal. As one Old Dominion driver con-
cisely summarized, "We don’t have no females." Merritt’s
two-year quest to be transferred from Line Haul to Pickup and
Delivery is consistent with that general pattern. She was twice
passed over in favor of less-experienced males; she was not
told the truth about her supervisor’s authority to fill the posi-
tion; and she was told that she was not hired become some
were uncomfortable with women having the job and were
wary that the enhanced physical requirements of Pickup and
Delivery, as compared to Line Haul, were too demanding for
women. Even after she was finally hired, she was placed on
an allegedly out-of-the-ordinary probationary status and never
granted a change in her official job title. The evidence would
allow a jury to conclude that Old Dominion never wanted to
hire Merritt in the first place and lends credence to the view
that it was looking for a reason to fire her.

To be sure, we do not hold that Merritt’s evidence must be
believed or that, if believed, must yield an inference that Old
Dominion unlawfully discriminated against her. But because
Merritt’s evidence may well be believed and may well yield
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 21
such an inference, Old Dominion is not entitled to summary
judgment.

IV.

At this point, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a step back.
We fully acknowledge that the "elusive factual question of
intentional discrimination" is inevitably tough and rarely clear
cut. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
254 n.8 (1981). Our holding is not about setting tripwires
whenever an employer fails to dot its "i’s" or cross its "t’s" in
following a policy. It is not about taking a fine-toothed comb
to the record in the hopes of unearthing some minor discrep-
ancy in an employer’s story. And it is certainly not about
infusing fear and trembling into a company’s every employ-
ment decision.

But the alleged facts here are too problematic to overlook.
Evidence of a good employee record combines with evidence
of an impermissible company attitude to form a lethal concoc-
tion. Old Dominion fired an employee who was, according to
the district court, "able to do her job without assistance and
in a satisfactory manner," due to a treatable ankle injury,
while hiding behind the results of a selectively administered
physical fitness test that did not even purport to test the injury,
and while dubiously claiming that its decision was compelled
by a late-blooming policy, all in the context of, to put it
mildly, a sexually stereotyped work environment. In this case,
it is not any single piece of evidence but rather the evidence
taken in its entirety that leads us to believe Merritt deserves
a trial. Disposition of Merritt’s claim at the summary judg-
ment stage would "intrude on the jury function by substituting
our own judgment for that of the finder of fact." Dennis v.
Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 650 (4th
Cir. 2002). At trial, Old Dominion will be free to note the bur-
dens that law and regulation can impose on legitimate busi-
ness judgment, but Merritt will be free to argue on her record
22 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
that opportunity under law must be open to the talents and
industry of all.

V.

Based on all the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Old Dominion and
remand for trial on Merritt’s Title VII claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

DAVIS, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I am pleased to join the majority opinion in full and
applaud the excellent craftsmanship of my good colleague in
authoring the opinion. I particularly appreciate the majority
opinion’s reminder that, in intentional discrimination cases,
we should not examine the trees so minutely that we lose
sight of the forest. The ultimate question in this case, as in all
intentional discrimination cases, is not whether the McDon-
nell Douglas test is satisfied. It is instead, as the majority
opinion teaches, whether the plaintiff has generated a genuine
dispute of material fact that she is the victim of intentional
discrimination, notwithstanding facially plausible reasons
offered by the employer for its adverse employment action.
The proof scheme is but a useful tool to help identify and
resolve that real issue.

Although employment discrimination cases are inherently
fact-specific, this case stands for an important premise. Our
holding makes it abundantly clear that this court will evaluate
the actual application of employment tests and practices that
employers claim to apply in a neutral manner. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(h) (employment tests are not unlawful as long as
they are not "designed, intended or used to discriminate
because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin"). We
will scrutinize these ostensibly neutral practices with care,
particularly those that insulate employers from liability in
 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 23
workplace environments infused with discriminatory animus.
An ultimate decision maker’s proclamation that he or she neu-
trally applied a policy or test or practice simply will not with-
stand scrutiny under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in the face of
substantial direct and circumstantial evidence to the contrary,
evidence, for example, that the employer makes exceptions to
the use of, or that that employer selectively applies, the osten-
sibly "neutral" device.

The majority opinion cogently reasons to its conclusion
that, in this case, "a reasonable fact finder could look askance
at Stoddard’s selective use of the PAT, requiring Merritt to
take the test and exempting men who, like Smith and Dalton,
suffered arguably more debilitating physical setbacks and
missed more work[,]" Maj. Op. at 19, and that "[t]he evidence
would allow a jury to conclude that Old Dominion never
wanted to hire Merritt in the first place and lends credence to
the view that it was looking for a reason to fire her." Id. at 20.
I firmly agree. As the majority opinion notes, this case pre-
sents "evidence that clearly indicates a discriminatory attitude
at the workplace and . . . illustrate[s] a nexus between that
negative attitude and the employment action." Lettieri, 478
F.3d at 649 (quoting Harbour Rec. Club, 180 F.3d at 608).

Moreover, while there are certainly some facts in dispute,
there are several evidentiary clusters that rest outside the cred-
ibility disputes alluded to by the majority. For example, as the
majority opinion recognizes, it is undisputed that Merritt’s
supervisor found Merritt’s work as a Pickup and Delivery
driver to be fully satisfactory and that he even received com-
pliments from clients about her work. It is also undisputed
that Old Dominion applied the PAT test only on a "very vari-
able" basis and did not apply it primarily to evaluate whether
an employee could return to work after a workplace injury. It
is undisputed that the PAT test was never intended to test the
rehabilitation of Merritt’s sprained ankle; instead, it was for-
mulated to serve as a pre-employment test. It is undisputed
that Merritt was fired because she failed the PAT test. And
24 MERRITT v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
lastly, it is undisputed that Old Dominion could only identify
six female Pickup and Delivery drivers out of its workforce
of 3,000 employees, and that Old Dominion replaced Merritt,
one of those six female employees, with a male Pickup and
Delivery driver. These undisputed facts are emphatically
material to the ultimate issue of whether Merritt is the victim
of intentional gender discrimination but they could easily
escape careful consideration by a busy district court because
they do not fit neatly within the McDonnell Douglas frame-
work. The majority opinion persuasively demonstrates how a
court’s analysis of intentional discrimination claims must
accommodate probative evidence of every sort, and I am
happy to join it fully.