context: See Mathews' Dep. at 78, 83-84, 87-88, 96, 123-127. Mathews' violation of Giant's policy indicates that his performance was not satisfactory.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 32 F.Supp.2d 249, 255
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that employee's performance was unsatisfactory in part because he was tardy on a regular basis
citation_a.sentence: See Blair v. Colonnas Shipyard Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 687, 694 (E.D.Va.1999), aff'd mem., 203 F.3d 819 (4th Cir.2000) (“Accordingly, since [employee] violated policies that the [employer] considered ‘very important,’ he did not perform his job satisfactorily and cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.”); see also Farasat v. Pauli-kas, 32 F.Supp.2d 249, 255 (D.Md.1998), aff'd mem., 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir.1998) (holding that employee’s performance was unsatisfactory in part because he was tardy on a regular basis).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 52 F.Supp.2d 687, 694
citation_b.parenthetical: "Accordingly, since [employee] violated policies that the [employer] considered 'very important,' he did not perform his job satisfactorily and cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination."
citation_b.sentence: See Blair v. Colonnas Shipyard Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 687, 694 (E.D.Va.1999), aff'd mem., 203 F.3d 819 (4th Cir.2000) (“Accordingly, since [employee] violated policies that the [employer] considered ‘very important,’ he did not perform his job satisfactorily and cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.”); see also Farasat v. Pauli-kas, 32 F.Supp.2d 249, 255 (D.Md.1998), aff'd mem., 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir.1998) (holding that employee’s performance was unsatisfactory in part because he was tardy on a regular basis).