|
Hill v. Quantum Resources Corp.
940 F.2d 652, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23457 (4th Cir. 1991)
No. 90-2436
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
940 F.2d 652; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23457
May 7, 1991, Argued
August 13, 1991, Decided
NOTICE: [*1]
RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
Reported as Table Case at 940 F.2d 652, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23457.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, District Judge. CA-90-97-R.
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL:
ARGUED: Jay J. Levit, LEVIT & MANN, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Thamer Eugene Temple, III, MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Jack W. Burtch, Jr., MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
JUDGES:
Ervin, Chief Judge, and Staker, United States District
Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia,
sitting by designation, and Kaufman, Senior United
States District Judge for the District of Maryland,
sitting by designation.
OPINIONBY:
PER CURIAM
OPINION: OPINION
Dorothy T. Hill brought suit against her former employer
Quantum Resources Corporation (Quantum) alleging age
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § § 621
et seq. (1976) ("ADEA"). Hill claimed that
Quantum discriminated against her on account of her
age; however, she offered no evidence of [*2] such
discrimination except for her own conclusion that age
was a factor and a single ambiguous statement that
possibly could be construed as discriminatory. In response
to Hill's allegations, Quantum offered affidavits indicating
that Hill was unable to adapt to the company's use
of a new computer system.
Hill offered no direct evidence that age was a determining
factor in the decision to terminate her. Therefore,
to prevail, Hill had to make out a prima facie case
of discrimination under the shifting burdens test first
set out McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). This
shifting burdens scheme was adapted for application
in ADEA litigation. EEOC v. Western Elec. Co., 713
F.2d 1011, 1014 (4th Cir. 1983).
In order to make out a prima facie ADEA case, Hill
had to show that: (1) she was in the protected age
group; (2) she was discharged; (3) at the time of her
discharge, she was performing her job at a level that
met her employer's legitimate expectations; and (4)
following her discharge, Hill was replaced by someone
of comparable qualifications outside the protected
[*3] class. Goldberg v. B. Green & Co., 836 F.2d
845, 849 (4th Cir. 1988). Quantum moved for summary
judgment on the ground that Hill offered no evidence
to meet the third prong of her prima facie case. After
a hearing on the motion, the district court agreed
with Quantum and granted summary judgment in Quantum's
favor.
We agree with the district court that summary judgment
in favor of Quantum was proper. The district court
could not find any reasonable basis to distinguish
Pfeifer v. Lever Brothers Co., 693 F. Supp. 358 (D.
Md. 1987), aff'd, 850 F.2d 689 (4th Cir. 1988), and
granted summary judgment under the rationale of Pfeifer.
Like the district court, we can find no reasonable
ground for distinguishing Pfeifer and are persuaded
that summary judgment in this case was proper. This
case lacked any real evidence of age discrimination.
Further, Hill has presented no evidence to refute Quantum's
demonstration that Hill was not performing at a level
that met Quantum's legitimate expectations at the time
of her discharge.
In sum, we agree with the reasoning of the district
court in this case. Therefore, we affirm [*4] the order
granting summary judgment in favor of Quantum.
AFFIRMED
|
