Beth Boardman v. United Parcel Service General
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00962-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998736812].. [10-2084]
Appeal: 10-2084
Document: 55
Date Filed: 12/06/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2084
BETH BOARDMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00962-JFM)
Submitted:
November 30, 2011
Decided:
December 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diane MacArthur Brown, OLSEN & BROWN, LLC, Niwot, Colorado, for
Appellant. Emmett F. McGee, Jr., Paul A. Mallos, JACKSON LEWIS
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-2084
Document: 55
Date Filed: 12/06/2011
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Beth Boardman sued her former employer, United Parcel
Service General Services Company (“UPSGSC”), alleging that she
was terminated because of her gender and age in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the
Age
Discrimination
granted
summary
in
Employment
judgment
for
Act.
UPSGSC.
The
For
district
the
court
reasons
that
follow, we affirm.
We review the district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light
most
favorable
to
the
non-moving
party.
Henson
Group, Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 1995).
is
required
to
enter
summary
judgment
v.
Liggett
A district court
if
the
pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file
together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The question to be resolved in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment is whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict
for
the
plaintiff
on
the
evidence
presented.
Anderson
v.
could
not
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
The
district
court
found
that
Boardman
establish a prima facie case of gender or age discrimination
because she failed to show that she was meeting the legitimate
2
Appeal: 10-2084
Document: 55
Date Filed: 12/06/2011
Page: 3 of 3
expectations of her employer, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), and that even if Boardman could have
established a prima facie case, she failed to show that the
employer’s
reasons
for
terminating
her
were
pretextual.
Reeves v. Sanderson, 530 U.S. 133, 151-52 (2000).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.
See Boardman v. United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs.
Co., No. 1:09-cv-00962-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2010).
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?