Janet R. Mays v. Qwest Corporation, a foreign company, AKA Qwest Communications Company LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANET R. MAYS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
QWEST CORPORATION, a foreign
company, AKA Qwest Communications
Company LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15556
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01140-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Janet Mays appeals from the judgment entered following the
district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant-
appellee Qwest Corporation. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do
FILED
JUN 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

not recite them further except as necessary to explain our decision. We have
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mays did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination as
required under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Mays
failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that she was qualified
for the Lee Circle fiber splicing position in 2007 because the uncontroverted evidence
showed that she did not request a transfer to fiber splicing at Lee Circle on her LMR
form at that time.
Supposing she made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, Mays’
claim further fails for the independent reason that she has failed to create a triable
issue of material fact as to pretext. 411 U.S. at 804.
Finally, since Mays was transferred to Lee Circle as soon as she was eligible
after filing a request to transfer to Lee Circle, under Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and
Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996), there is a strong inference that no one at
Qwest held a discriminatory animus against Mays.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --