Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03436/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03436-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Avaya
Appellee
Lori M. Metzsch
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3436

___________

Lori M. Metzsch, an individual, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Avaya, Inc., a corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 23, 2005

Filed: December 9, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lori M. Metzsch appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment-discrimination action brought under the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII, and state law. Having

carefully reviewed the record, see Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir.

2005) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Metzsch

failed to produce anything showing that the reason for terminating her--her perceived

bad attitude--was a pretext for age or gender discrimination, see Cerutti v. BASF

Appellate Case: 04-3436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984113
-2-

Corp., 349 F.3d 1055, 1062 (7th Cir. 2003) (ADEA was not enacted to immunize

older workers from being terminated for legitimate reasons such as bad attitude);

Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1109 (8th Cir. 1998) (Title VII

does not prohibit employment decisions based on, inter alia, personality conflicts).

While instances of disparate treatment can support finding of pretext, see Wheeler v.

Aventis Pharm., 360 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2004), Metzsch offered nothing showing

that two younger males--hired at the same time as she for the same position that she

held--complained about their work assignments as Metzsch had done, see id.

(employees are similarly situated when they are involved in or are accused of same

conduct, and are disciplined differently). 

Similarly, we agree with the district court that the conduct Metzsch cited as a

basis for her harassment or hostile-work-environment claim was insufficient to create

trialworthy issues. See Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir. 2003) (for

hostile-work-environment claim to succeed, alleged conduct must be so extreme as

to change terms or conditions of employment). The district court also properly

rejected Metzsch’s contention that an employment contract had been created. See

Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., 416 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Neb. 1987) (right to

terminate employee at will should be restricted to exceptions created by statute or

instances where clear public-policy mandate has been violated). Metzsch’s repeated

references on appeal to her unverified complaint are unavailing, because only a

verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment.

See Ward v. Moore, 414 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Metzsch’s remaining arguments, and her numerous challenges to various other

rulings made by the district court, provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot her pending motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984113