Beth Boardman v. United Parcel Service General Services Company

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 in Employment Act. The district court
granted summary judgment for UPSGSC. For the 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 v. Liggett
Group, Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 1995). A district court
is required to enter summary judgment 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.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
The district court found that Boardman could not
establish a prima facie case of gender or age discrimination
because she failed to show that she was meeting the legitimate

-- 2 of 3 --

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 of 3 --