Third Circuit disposition — 055171np-pdf

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-5171
GWENDOLYN E. MOORER,
Appellant
vs.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Appellee
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-01265)
District Judge: Honorable Joy F. Conti
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 26, 2006
Before: SMITH, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Filed: December 6, 2006
____________
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

1 As the District Court noted, Verizon Communications is improperly
identified as defendant in this matter. Defendant was employed by Verizon Services
Corporation.
2
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff is an African-American female who was forty-nine years of age at
the time of her discharge from defendant Verizon Services Corporation.1 She brought a
claim alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and race in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and on the basis of age in
violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment for
defendant.
The District Court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case
of race or sex discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973) because she did not demonstrate that similarly situated individuals who were not
members of the protected class were treated more favorably than she was treated. It also
held that she failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the
McDonnell Douglas framework because she failed to prove that she was replaced by a
sufficiently younger person to create an inference of discrimination.
The District Court further found that, even if she had established a prima
facie case of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age, defendant would still prevail
under McDonnell Douglas because plaintiff could not show that the defendant’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment were pretext.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Specifically, plaintiff did not produce adequate evidence to contradict the defendant’s
assertion that she had failed to meet her sales quota.
We have scrutinized the record in this case, particularly the comprehensive
opinion of the District Court. We are persuaded that there was no reversible error in the
entry of summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish a disputed issue of material fact.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --