No: 02-2286 ARA MARIE HAVENS v. E.i. Du Pont De Nemours and Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-2286
ARA MARIE HAVENS,
Appellant
v.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
District Court Judge: The Honorable Roderick R. McKelvie
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-01056)
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 14, 2003
Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: February 4, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

-- 1 of 3 --

2
On December 18, 2000, Ara Marie Havens ("Havens"), a fifty-three year old woman,
filed this civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"). Havens alleged violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Havens asserted
that DuPont retaliated against Havens for filing a previous lawsuit and committed sex and
age discrimination by failing to promote Havens to a higher paid position. DuPont instead
promoted five male candidates, all younger than Havens. After the close of discovery,
DuPont moved for summary judgment. On April 11, 2002, the District Court granted
DuPont summary judgment on all claims.
We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over a final decision of a district
court. We exercise plenary review over a district court's grant of summary judgment and
review the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment
was entered. See Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 105 n.5 (3d Cir. 2000). Summary
judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
(1986). At the summary judgment stage, the judge's function is not to weigh the evidence
and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
After a careful review of the record and the Parties' arguments, we find no basis for

-- 2 of 3 --

3
disturbing the District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Havens produced
neither evidence that she was denied a promotion in retaliation for filing another lawsuit
nor evidence that DuPont's non-discriminatory reasons for denying her a promotion were
pretextual. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment for substantially the same reasons set
forth in the record.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --