Patricia Williams v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.

The Honorable Paul L. Maloney, Chief United States District Judge for the W estern District of Michigan, *
sitting by designation.
She also claimed that she was wrongfully denied overtime wages and appealed the district court’s grant of 1
summary judgment to the defendants on that claim. But she has abandoned that claim on appeal by failing to offer any
argument in support of her position or any legal citation that would support such an argument.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0725n.06
Case No. 08-6417
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF
WASHINGTON, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge and GIBBONS, Circuit Judge; and MALONEY,
Chief District Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Patricia Williams sued her former employer,
Expeditors International, claiming that she was denied promotions on the basis of her gender and her
age, in violation of federal law. Expeditors moved for summary judgment and the district court1
analyzed the claim pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).
The court found that Ms. Williams had set out a prima facie case, but that Expeditors had responded
with a legitimate non-discriminatory reason — that the chosen employees were better qualified. The
district court then concluded that Ms. Williams had not proven (and could not prove) any pretext
sufficient to establish her claim of discrimination and overcome summary judgment.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that
the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law to the
facts in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --