GRAHAM v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
NORMAN GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:24-cv-119 (CDL)
O R D E R
Norman Graham worked as a Correctional Detail Officer for the
Columbus 	Consolidated 	Government 	(“CCG”) 	until 	he 	was 	terminated
in 	2023. 	Graham 	contends 	that 	CCG 	discriminated 	against 	him
because 	of 	his 	disability 	and 	terminated 	him 	in 	retaliation 	for
taking 	extended 	medical 	leave 	in 	2022 	and 	2023. 	Graham 	asserts
disability discrimination and retaliation claims against CCG under
the 	Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(“ADA”), 	42 	U.S.C. 	§§ 	12112,
12217 & 12203. 	CCG filed a motion for summary judgment as to all
of 	Graham’s 	claims. 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	that 	motion 	(ECF
No. 11) is granted.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary 	judgment 	may 	be 	granted 	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 	determining 	whether 	a 	genuine 	dispute 	of 	material
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 14

2
fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence
is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment, 	drawing 	all 	justifiable 	inferences 	in 	the 	opposing
party’s favor. 	Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). 	A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the
outcome of the suit. 	Id. at 248. 	A factual dispute is genuine if
the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
the nonmoving party. 	Id.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Viewed 	in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	Graham, 	the 	record
reveals the following facts.
Norman Graham began working as a correctional detail officer
for CCG in 2003. 	In August of 2019, Graham was granted a transfer
to 	work 	as 	a 	correctional 	detail 	officer 	in 	the 	Facilities
Maintenance 	Division 	of 	CCG, 	where 	he 	oversaw 	the 	only 	inmate
painting 	crew 	in 	the 	division. 	Graham 	worked 	in 	this 	position
until his separation in June 2023.
As 	a 	correctional 	detail 	officer, 	Graham 	was 	required 	to 	be
certified 	by 	the 	Georgia 	Peace 	Officer 	Standards 	and 	Training
(“POST”) Council and complete annual training programs each year.
Graham last attended the POST training in 2022. 	Graham’s essential
duties 	consisted 	of 	supervising 	three 	to 	eight 	inmates 	at 	a 	time
as they performed general labor tasks. 	He transported the inmates
in 	a 	CCG-issued 	car 	or 	van 	from 	the 	Muscogee 	County 	Prison 	to
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 14

3
various job sites and back, and he purchased painting supplies for
the 	crew. 	He 	was 	required 	to 	carry 	a 	gun 	and 	handcuffs, 	and 	he
had to possess knowledge of general takedown techniques to ensure
the 	safety 	of 	himself, 	the 	inmates, 	and 	other 	citizens 	in 	the
community.
In 	December 	of 	2018, 	Dr. 	George 	Miller 	submitted 	a 	medical
certification 	form 	to 	CCG 	stating 	that 	Graham 	had 	been 	diagnosed
with chronic systolic congestive heart failure in August of 2017.
This 	form 	stated 	that 	Graham 	would 	periodically 	be 	unable 	to
perform 	job 	functions 	when 	symptomatic 	and 	could 	not 	lift 	more
than twenty pounds. 	By December 2018, Graham had been hospitalized
at 	least 	five 	times 	for 	issues 	related 	to 	his 	heart 	disease. 	In
June 2019, Graham was admitted to the hospital overnight.
In 	December 	of 	2020, 	Graham 	experienced 	sudden 	shortness 	of
breath 	while 	transporting 	prisoners 	and 	had 	to 	be 	taken 	to 	the
emergency 	room, 	where 	he 	became 	unresponsive 	and 	had 	to 	be
intubated. 	In 	January 	of 	2021, 	Graham 	again 	experienced 	sudden
shortness of breath while at work and went to the emergency room.
In 	May 	of 	2021, 	Graham 	went 	back 	to 	the 	emergency 	room 	after
experiencing 	chest 	pain. 	In 	January 	of 	2022, 	Graham 	experienced
physical distress while at work and had to be taken to the hospital
in an ambulance. 	He was admitted to the hospital for a few days.
Graham also went to the emergency room at least twice in February
of 2022 and once in March of 2022. 	Around this time, Graham failed
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 14

4
a 	cardiac 	stress 	test 	but 	did 	not 	report 	it 	to 	CCG. 	Graham 	had
exhausted all his paid leave by April of 2022. 	In April of 2022,
Dr. 	Miller 	submitted 	a 	second 	medical 	certification 	form 	to 	CCG
stating that Graham needed to work a reduced schedule indefinitely
and may be able to complete three to four hours of desk work a day
but 	could 	not 	transport 	inmates 	to 	and 	from 	work 	assignments.
Graham 	was 	hospitalized 	again 	in 	May 	of 	2022. 	From 	January 	of
2022 to August of 2022, Graham worked five total days.
In 	August 	of 	2022, 	Dr. 	Miller 	cleared 	Graham 	to 	return 	to
work for sixteen to twenty-four hours a week. 	Because Graham was
feeling 	better, 	he 	ignored 	Dr. 	Miller’s 	work 	limitations 	and
returned to work on a full-time schedule at the end of August 2022.
In 	December 	of 	2022, 	Graham 	felt 	bad 	while 	driving, 	so 	he 	pulled
over and called EMS. 	Graham was admitted to the hospital and went
into cardiac arrest. 	He remained unconscious for days and was not
discharged 	until 	mid-January 	2023. 	Less 	than 	one 	week 	after 	he
was 	discharged 	from 	the 	hospital, 	Graham 	was 	readmitted 	to 	the
hospital 	for 	another 	week 	and 	was 	discharged 	into 	the 	care 	of 	a
home 	health 	service. 	The 	last 	day 	Graham 	worked 	as 	a 	detail
officer for CCG was December 22, 2022.
Dr. 	Miller 	referred 	Graham 	to 	Dr. 	Youssef 	Nasr, 	an 	advanced
heart failure & transplant cardiologist, in February of 2023. 	At
this 	time, 	Graham 	struggled 	to 	do 	daily 	life 	activities 	without
losing his breath, could only walk 150 feet without getting tired
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 14

5
and 	having 	to 	stop, 	and 	could 	not 	walk 	up 	a 	flight 	of 	stairs
without stopping. 	Dr. Nasr determined that Graham might be in end
stage 	heart 	failure 	based 	on 	many 	high-risk 	factors, 	including
Graham’s 	history 	of 	living 	with 	heart 	failure 	for 	many 	years
without improvement, his enlarged heart, his unimproved condition
despite taking medication, his frequent hospitalizations, and his
frequent 	shortness 	of 	breath 	and 	inability 	to 	perform 	daily
activities. 	In March of 2023, Graham underwent a catheterization
procedure 	and 	had 	to 	be 	admitted 	to 	the 	hospital. 	Based 	on 	the
results 	of 	the 	procedure, 	Dr. 	Nasr 	concluded 	that 	Graham 	was 	not
at end stage heart failure but was very close. 	Later that month,
Graham was admitted to the hospital with more cardiac symptoms.
On March 31, 2023, Dr. Nasr wrote a letter to CCG recommending
that Graham remain out of work until at least April 28, 2023, while
Graham underwent further testing to determine when he could return
to work. 	Graham took a cardio stress test on April 21, 2023, and
he 	failed 	it 	even 	though 	he 	had 	been 	doing 	better 	and 	engaged 	in
physical 	therapy 	for 	a 	month. 	Dr. 	Nasr 	informed 	Graham 	of 	the
poor 	test 	results, 	and 	Graham 	requested 	a 	letter 	to 	go 	back 	to
work. 	Though he was concerned about the poor stress test results,
Dr. Nasr issued a note to CCG stating that Graham could return to
light 	duty 	work 	for 	a 	maximum 	of 	thirty-two 	hours 	a 	week 	with 	no
heavy 	lifting. 	Graham 	submitted 	the 	note 	to 	Johnny 	Harp, 	the
Facilities 	Maintenance 	Division 	Manager 	for 	CCG 	Public 	Works.
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 14

6
Drale 	Short, 	the 	Director 	of 	Public 	Works 	for 	CCG, 	rejected
Graham’s light duty request on the grounds that Graham’s sustained
absences had created a backlog of work. 	Short Dep. 100:9-21, ECF
No. 14. 	Graham remained out on leave.
In 	May 	of 	2023, 	Short 	recommended 	terminating 	Graham’s
employment 	and 	allowing 	him 	to 	apply 	for 	part-time 	work. 	Id. 	at
99:25-100:21. 	Reather Hollowell, the Human Resources Director for
CCG, suggested that it could be a layoff. 	Id. at 109:12-17. 	Short
does 	not 	remember 	if 	Harp 	ever 	recommended 	terminating 	Graham.
Id. at 112:19-21. 	On June 23, 2023, Short mailed Graham a letter
stating that he was being laid off because it was apparent that he
could 	not 	return 	to 	his 	regular 	duty 	as 	a 	correctional 	detail
officer. 	Graham 	Dep. 	Ex. 	29, 	Letter 	from 	D. 	Short 	to 	N. 	Graham
(June 23, 2023), ECF No. 13-29. 	The letter made clear that light
duty 	was 	not 	a 	permanent 	solution, 	but 	invited 	Graham 	to 	let 	CCG
know 	if 	there 	was 	another 	way 	to 	accommodate 	him. 	Id. 	Graham
received the letter on June 26, 2023.
On 	June 	28, 	2023-two 	days 	before 	Graham’s 	effective 	date 	of
separation-Graham attended an appointment with Dr. Nasr. 	At this
appointment, Graham stated that he felt much better and wanted to
return to work so that he could retire by the end of the year and
have 	insurance. 	At 	the 	appointment, 	Dr. 	Nasr 	determined 	that
Graham 	had 	a 	higher 	risk 	of 	re-hospitalization, 	going 	from 	a
“three” to a “six” on the scale Dr. Nasr uses to measure a patient’s
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 14

7
risk. 	Although Graham stated that he felt better, he also stated
he was still short of breath when performing daily activities such
as bathing and getting dressed. 	Dr. Nasr acknowledged that it was
“risky, but possibly doable” for Graham to return to work because
there was still a risk of re-hospitalization and death. 	Nasr Dep.
64:9-65:7, 	ECF 	No. 	15. 	Dr. 	Nasr 	stated 	that 	Graham 	was 	still
“living at the borderline situation”, where Graham could get better
or he could suddenly get worse. 	Id. at 67:6-12. 	Dr. Nasr did not
conduct 	any 	clinical 	tests 	at 	this 	appointment. 	Id. 	at 	62:12-
63:4. 	Based 	on 	Graham’s 	representations 	to 	Dr. 	Nasr, 	Dr. 	Nasr
issued 	a 	form 	return-to-work 	note 	stating 	that 	in 	his 	opinion,
“Graham may return to full duty immediately with no restrictions.”
Graham Dep. Ex. 28, Note from Dr. Y. Nasr (June 28, 2023), ECF No.
13-28 (“Return-to-Work Note”). 	Dr. Nasr did not know what Graham’s
job 	duties 	were 	when 	he 	issued 	this 	note. 	Nasr 	Dep. 	50:4-51:14;
72:14-24.
Graham 	delivered 	the 	note 	to 	Short’s 	assistant 	on 	June 	29,
2023. 	Short emailed this note to Hollowell stating that “we don’t
want 	[Graham] 	back. 	He 	was 	not 	a 	productive 	employee.” 	Short
Dep. 150:17-151:6. 	Short based this opinion on a backlog of work
orders 	caused 	by 	Graham’s 	absences. 	Id. 	at 	162:8-163:7. 	Harp
also 	shared 	the 	opinion 	that 	Graham 	was 	“not 	an 	efficient 	or
productive employee.” 	Harp Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 11-2.
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 14

8
On 	June 	30, 	2023, 	Short 	spoke 	to 	Graham 	on 	the 	phone 	and
declined to rescind the layoff. 	Graham testified that Short stated
“I’m not taking you back, not taking anybody back that want to run
up 	and 	go 	see 	a 	doctor 	to 	save 	their 	job.” 	Graham 	Dep. 	300:3-8,
ECF 	No. 	13. 	Short 	testified 	that 	if 	she 	had 	received 	Dr. 	Nasr’s
note 	prior 	to 	mailing 	the 	separation 	notice, 	she 	would 	have
discussed 	the 	possibility 	of 	Graham 	returning 	to 	work 	with 	HR
Director Hollowell. 	Short Dep. 160:21-161:5. 	Short possessed the
authority to rescind Graham’s termination notice before it became
effective. 	Hollowell 	Dep. 	66:2-18, 	ECF 	No. 	18. 	No 	one 	from 	CCG
contacted Graham’s doctors to ask questions about Graham’s fitness
to serve before Graham was terminated. 	Id. at 69:1-20.
DISCUSSION
Graham 	asserts 	that 	his 	termination 	was 	discriminatory 	and
retaliatory, 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	ADA. 	CCG 	moves 	for 	summary
judgment on both claims, which the Court addresses in turn below.
I. 	Graham’s ADA Discrimination Claim
The ADA prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against
a 	qualified 	individual 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	disability.” 	42 	U.S.C.
§ 12112(a). 	To establish discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff
must 	show 	that 	(1) 	he 	has 	a 	disability; 	(2) 	he 	is 	a 	qualified
individual; and (3) the employer discriminated against him because
of his disability. 	Akridge v. Alfa Ins. Cos., 93 F.4th 1181, 1191
(11th 	Cir. 	2024). 	It 	is 	undisputed 	that 	Graham 	had 	a 	disability
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 8 of 14

9
(his 	heart 	condition), 	but 	CCG 	argues 	that 	Graham 	was 	not 	a
qualified individual. 	CCG further asserts that even if Graham was
a qualified individual, Graham did not produce sufficient evidence
for 	a 	reasonable 	jury 	to 	find 	that 	CCG 	unlawfully 	discriminated
against him because of his disability.
The 	ADA 	only 	protects 	a 	“qualified 	individual” 	from
employment discrimination. 	42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 	Under the ADA,
a “qualified individual” is an individual with a disability “who,
with 	or 	without 	reasonable 	accommodation, 	can 	perform 	the
essential 	functions 	of” 	his 	job. 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	12111(8). 	“If 	the
individual 	is 	unable 	to 	perform 	an 	essential 	function 	of 	[his]
job, 	even 	with 	an 	accommodation, 	he 	is, 	by 	definition, 	not 	a
‘qualified individual’ and, therefore, not covered under the ADA.”
Holly 	v. 	Clairson 	Indus., 	L.L.C., 	492 	F.3d 	1247, 	1256 	(11th 	Cir.
2007) 	(quoting 	D'Angelo 	v. 	ConAgra 	Foods, 	Inc., 	422 	F.3d 	1220,
1229 	(11th 	Cir. 	2005)). 	Further, 	“[a]n 	employer 	may 	fire 	a
disabled employee if the disability renders the employee a ‘direct
threat’ 	to 	his 	own 	health 	and 	safety.” 	Moses 	v. 	Am. 	Nonwovens,
Inc., 	97 	F.3d 	446, 	447 	(11th 	Cir. 	1996) 	(per 	curiam). 	“Direct
threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health
or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or
reduced 	by 	reasonable 	accommodation.” 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1630.2(r).
Whether an individual poses a direct threat “shall be based on an
individualized 	assessment 	of 	the 	individual’s 	present 	ability 	to
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 9 of 14

10
safely 	perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	the 	job.” 	Id. 	“The
employee 	retains 	at 	all 	times 	the 	burden 	of 	persuading 	the 	jury
either 	that 	he 	was 	not 	a 	direct 	threat 	or 	that 	reasonable
accommodations were available.” 	Moses, 97 F.3d at 447.
CCG 	asserts 	that 	Graham 	was 	unqualified 	to 	perform 	the
essential 	functions 	of 	his 	job 	and 	that 	Graham’s 	disability
rendered him a direct threat to himself and others. 	The essential
functions 	of 	Graham’s 	job 	included 	being 	present 	at 	work,
independently 	providing 	armed 	supervision 	for 	prison 	inmates 	on
work 	details, 	and 	driving 	the 	inmates 	to 	and 	from 	work 	details.
Graham 	does 	not 	argue 	that 	any 	reasonable 	accommodations 	would
have 	allowed 	him 	to 	safely 	perform 	these 	essential 	functions.
Rather, Graham asserts that Dr. Nasr’s note clearing him to return
to 	work 	conclusively 	established 	that 	he 	was 	immediately 	able 	to
work 	full-time 	without 	restrictions 	and 	perform 	the 	essential
functions 	of 	his 	job 	without 	endangering 	himself 	or 	others. 	It
did not.
When 	CCG 	mailed 	the 	notice 	of 	separation 	on 	June 	23, 	2023,
the 	most 	recent 	doctor’s 	note 	Graham 	had 	submitted 	to 	CCG 	stated
that 	Graham 	could 	only 	work 	in 	light 	duty 	capacity 	for 	limited
hours, 	which 	would 	not 	enable 	him 	to 	perform 	the 	essential
functions of his job. 	Based on information Graham and his doctors
provided, 	CCG 	knew 	that 	Graham 	suffered 	from 	a 	chronic 	heart
disease 	that 	led 	to 	several 	hospitalizations–including 	one
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 10 of 14

11
hospitalization 	after 	Graham 	became 	incapacitated 	on 	the 	job 	and
at 	least 	three 	times 	when 	he 	went 	to 	the 	hospital 	directly 	after
work. 	CCG also knew that Graham had missed months of work and had
not 	been 	cleared 	to 	return 	to 	full 	duty. 	Based 	on 	this
information, 	CCG 	issued 	a 	notice 	of 	separation 	letter 	informing
Graham that he was being laid off because it was apparent he could
not return to regular duty as a correctional detail officer. 	Less
than a week after receiving this letter, Graham submitted a generic
form 	return-to-work 	note 	from 	Dr. 	Nasr 	stating 	that 	Graham 	was
presently 	able 	to 	return 	to 	full 	duty. 	The 	letter 	contained 	no
details. 	Dr. 	Nasr 	testified 	that 	he 	issued 	this 	note 	based 	on
Graham’s representations to him that he felt better. 	Dr. Nasr did
not 	know 	what 	Graham’s 	specific 	job 	duties 	were 	and 	emphasized
that 	it 	was 	still 	risky 	for 	Graham 	to 	return 	to 	work 	because
Graham’s 	heart 	condition 	was 	severe 	and 	Graham 	was 	still 	in 	a
borderline state where he could get better or worse.
When considering the nature of Graham’s job, the severity of
his heart disease, and Dr. Nasr’s deposition testimony concerning
Graham’s 	condition 	on 	June 	28, 	2023, 	the 	generic 	return-to-work
note 	is 	not 	sufficient 	evidence 	to 	create 	a 	genuine 	fact 	dispute
on 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	Graham 	could 	perform 	the 	essential
functions of his job without endangering himself or others. 	Graham
contends that CCG should have at least obtained additional medical
information 	from 	his 	doctors 	before 	finalizing 	his 	termination,
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 11 of 14

12
but he pointed to no evidence that Dr. Nasr (or any other doctor)
would 	have 	told 	CCG 	that 	Graham’s 	symptoms 	had 	improved 	to 	the
point 	that 	it 	was 	safe 	for 	him 	to 	return 	to 	full 	duty 	performing
his 	essential 	job 	functions. 	Instead, 	Dr. 	Nasr’s 	deposition
testimony—which is presumably what Dr. Nasr would have said if CCG
had asked—establishes that Graham did not experience a miraculous
recovery on June 28, 2023. 	Rather, the testimony shows that Graham
still suffered from the same progressively worsening heart disease
that had prevented him from performing the essential functions of
his job for many months.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the generic return-to-work
note 	is 	not 	sufficient 	evidence 	to 	create 	a 	genuine 	issue 	of
material 	fact 	that 	Graham 	could, 	at 	the 	time 	of 	his 	termination,
perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	his 	job. 	The 	letter 	is 	also
not 	sufficient 	to 	show 	that 	Graham 	was 	not 	a 	direct 	threat 	to
himself or others in the community. 	For these reasons, the Court
finds 	that 	a 	reasonable 	jury 	could 	not 	conclude 	based 	on 	the
present 	record 	that 	Graham 	was 	a 	qualified 	individual, 	and 	the
Court 	thus 	grants 	CCG’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	on 	Graham’s
ADA discrimination claim.
II. 	Graham’s ADA Retaliation Claim
Graham 	also 	contends 	that 	CCG 	unlawfully 	retaliated 	against
him 	by 	separating 	him 	from 	his 	employment 	after 	taking 	extended
medical 	leave 	from 	2022-2023. 	The 	ADA 	prohibits 	retaliation
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 12 of 14

13
against an individual for opposing any unlawful act or practice in
violation 	of 	the 	ADA. 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 12203. 	To 	establish 	a 	prima
facie 	case 	of 	retaliation 	under 	the 	ADA, 	an 	employee 	must
demonstrate 	that 	“(1) 	[he] 	engaged 	in 	a 	statutorily 	protected
expression, 	(2) 	[he] 	suffered 	an 	adverse 	employment 	action, 	and
(3) 	there 	was 	a 	causal 	link 	between 	the 	two.” 	Frazier-White 	v.
Gee, 	818 	F.3d 	1249, 	1258 	(11th 	Cir. 	2016). 	The 	first 	element 	of
this claim —engaging in a statutorily protected expression —“may be
met by a request for reasonable accommodation.” 	Id.
CCG 	asserts 	that 	Graham 	did 	not 	engage 	in 	a 	statutorily
protected expression when he took extended medical leave in 2022-
2023. 	The 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	has 	found 	that 	an 	employee’s 	request
for 	an 	indefinite 	leave 	of 	absence 	was 	not 	a 	reasonable
accommodation. 	See Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir.
2003) (holding that an employee’s request of “an accommodation of
indefinite 	leaves 	of 	absence 	so 	that 	he 	could 	work 	at 	some
uncertain point in the future . . . was not reasonable”). 	Graham
admits 	that 	he 	was 	out 	of 	work 	on 	indefinite 	leave 	for
approximately 	fourteen 	months 	in 	2022 	and 	2023. 	Because 	an
indefinite 	leave 	of 	absence 	is 	not 	considered 	a 	reasonable
accommodation, 	Graham 	has 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	he 	engaged 	in
a 	statutorily 	protected 	expression 	under 	the 	ADA. 	Accordingly,
CCG’s 	summary 	judgment 	motion 	(ECF 	No. 	11) 	is 	granted 	as 	to
Graham’s ADA retaliation claim.
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 13 of 14

14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, CCG’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 11) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of December, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:24-cv-00119-CDL Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 14 of 14