Notification Guidelines required Mathews to notify Giant that he would miss his shift within two hours of that shift starting. See Def.’s Ex. 3. Mathews concedes that he violated this policy on three separate occasions. 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. 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>). Mathews argues that Giant’s policies do not
holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum holding that prior positive performance evaluations are not dispositive as to whether the employer was satisfied with the employees performance by the time of the termination holding that employees performance was unsatisfactory in part because he was tardy on a regular basis holding that employees insubordination and continued unsatisfactory work performance provided just cause for employees removal where employee failed to complete or make progress on the project given to him even though he was capable of doing such project was offered help on the project was relieved of certain duties in order to complete the project and had been reprimanded for not having completed the project holding that a review of an employees 1989 performance was irrelevant to a determination of whether his performance was satisfactory at the time of his termination in august of 1990